The Great Tribulation The Church's Supreme Test

Volume 1 Third Edition

Copyrighted August, 1933 By John J. Scruby

FOREWARD
Concerning the Lord's Coming, two main views are held: viz., PreMillennialism--the coming of Christ before the Millennium, and Post-Millennialism-the coming of Christ after the Millennium. Also two main views are held concerning the catching up of the Church: viz., Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism--the taking away of the Church before the Tribulation, and Post-Tribulation-Rapturism--the Rapture of the Church after the Tribulation. I am a Pre-Millennialist but a Post-Tribulation-Rapturist.1 So almost universally has the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture doctrine been held for the past seventy years that few seem to have thought it necessary to give it a specific name, other than "The Rapture"; but having, from the first of my acquaintance with it, taken strong issue with this popular belief, and noticing the growing rebellion against it with the consequent trend toward a return to "the old paths" of early Church belief on this subject, I am using these two phrases in order to distinguish clearly between the two views that differ so materially. Perhaps Pre-Tribulationism and Post-Tribulationism would answer as well or even better (certainly they would be less cumbersome), but until the issue represented by these terms is better understood, I shall use the longer terms because of the diminished possibility of misunderstanding their meaning. How I Became a Student of Prophecy Perhaps a statement of how forty-five years ago I became interested in the Pre-Millennial Second Coming of Christ will not be out of order here, as it will help to make clear why I have never believed the popular, but decidedly modern, teaching of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. My attention had been called to the possibility of the redemption of the body as a present attainment by faith, and I had read the New Testament through carefully more than once to find what it had to say about this matter which, it seemed to me, was the logical conclusion of the doctrine of "Faith Healing", as it was called at that time (later it was named "Divine Healing"), but I had not associated this present possible redemption of the body teaching with the second coming of Christ, because having heard almost nothing but Post-Millennialism
1 There is much dissension among the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists as to whether all living believers will be raptured before the Tribulation, or whether only the so-called "ready" saints will be "caught up to meet the Lord" at that time. One school teaches that "readiness" for the Rapture at the time of the "Parousia" of Christ, allegedly before the Tribulation, will be essential to participation in the Rapture; that all "unready" saints will be left behind to undergo some or all of the Tribulation judgments as a punishment for their unreadiness. I say, "some or all", because this school is divided and subdivided on the question as to whether these allegedly "unready" saints will be sufficiently purified by having endured a part of the Tribulation judgments to justify their rapture at some time or times during the Tribulation, or whether participation in all the Tribulation judgments will be necessary to accomplish their purification, and thus make them ready to meet the Lord when He descends to the earth at His "Apocalypse", allegedly at the end of the Tribulation. The other school teaches that because the Rapture is, as it alleges, "all of grace", necessarily all living believers will be raptured at the "Parousia" of the Lord, allegedly before the Tribulation, regardless of their readiness or unreadiness. This is only one example of the "confusion worse confounded" which exists among our Pre-Tribulation-Rapture friends. Other examples of this "confusion" will be mentioned and dealt with as we proceed.

theretofore, and very little of that, my information on and interest in the second coming of Christ were negligible. But an incident occurred which directed my attention to this subject. While visiting a friend in the south of Ireland, I chanced upon a news item which told of a cattle fair held nearby at which no one was allowed to transact business unless he had the white card of membership in a certain association fastened in the front of his hat. Immediately I said, "That is odd. I believe I have read something like that in the Bible." At once I began to "search the Scriptures" for what I thought I had seen, and finally found it. "And he [the Antichrist] causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark." Rev. 13:16,17. So striking was the resemblance between this prophecy and what I had read in the newspaper, that I was impelled to look further into the matter. And another incident increased by interest. Feared "Boycotting" The friend whom I was visiting was the treasurer of a certain company in that city. He and his wife occupied a suite of rooms over the company's offices. One day the wife informed me that her husband was greatly worried because an official of the company had told him he must ask me to leave, as it was being rumored in the town that I held extreme religious and political views, and it was feared that on this account a boycott might be declared against me which would include those who befriended me, and might include the offices of the company, and, of course, its business. I knew the fear was not entirely groundless, for while I was not interested in politics, therefore was taking no part in them, yet such was the nervous condition of many of the people there because of some boycotts which had occurred, that a mere whisper or suggestion would be sufficient to involve myself and my friends, and perhaps others, in a boycott of possible far-reaching results. And a boycott there and then was no small thing. I knew that my friend's hospitable soul rebelled against this demand of his superior, hence his worry, for he was torn between his hospitality to me and his loyalty to the company. Also he was in no position to refuse the demand. So I left and occupied a rented room in another part of the town during the remaining thirteen weeks of my stay. The Origin of "Boycotting" The word [boycott] was first used in Ireland, and was derived from the name of Captain Cunningham Boycott (1832-1897) agent for the estates of the Earl of Erne in County Mayo. For refusing in 1880 [five years before the time of which I am writing] to receive rent at figures fixed by the tenants, Captain Boycott's life was threatened, his servants were compelled to leave him, his fences torn down, his letters intercepted, and his food supplies interfered with. It took a force of 900 soldiers to protect the Ulster Orangemen who succeeded finally in getting in his crops." The foregoing, taken from the fourteenth edition of The Encyclopdia Brittanica, but feebly describes the perilous position in which Captain Boycott found himself. From this incident, "Boycotting" received its name; and it spread rapidly until it had encircled the globe, for its effectiveness as a weapon of

intimidation had been fully demonstrated. Some "Boycotting" Incidents In those days frightful atrocities were committed almost daily against boycotted persons, and even their animals were not immune to savage attack. A couple of incidents will serve to show the temper of the people there at that time. Walking on the beach at Youghal with friends, we saw a boy riding a mule which had a long gash in its side. The lad told us that his family was boycotted, and as one of their unfriendly acts the boycotters had invaded their pasture and slashed the mule. If a tenth of the stories that reached me of attacks upon animals were true, that mule was fortunate to have escaped with so little harm. Changing trains one day at Kilkenny, en route from Dublin to Waterford, I saw a wealthy woman leave a "first class" compartment of a train. From a "third class" compartment stepped two men of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The lady mounted a "jaunting car". The two constables took their seats on a car behind and the little cavalcade moved on; the policemen with loaded rifles ready for instant use. A local man informed me that the lady, a resident landholder, was under a boycott, so was guarded at all times by the police, for without an armed escort she would undoubtedly be shot. An Unbiased Student of the Scriptures Greatly impressed by what I had discovered in The Revelation and its similarity to what was occurring around me, I read the New Testament again for further prophetic teaching. On this subject my mind was "virgin soil". I had no theories about the Lord's coming, hence was at liberty to accept what I read without bias. Thus without previous teaching to the effect that the Lord would come for His saints before the Tribulation and with them after it to influence my judgment, I learned what is herein set forth, viz., that the Church will be in the Tribulation, not as a punishment but as a privilege; which Tribulation will be terminated by the coming of Christ to resurrect His sleeping saints and to catch them up, with their living companions, to meet Him in the air; and then, without pause, to accompany Him to the Mount of Olives, to be eye-witnesses of and probably participants in the events that will follow. Not until many months after did I learn that this was contrary to the popular doctrine concerning the time of the Rapture, and when I did learn this fact the battle was on, for immediately I challenged that doctrine, and the more I discussed it the more certain I felt that under my feet was the solid rock of God's eternal Word. Nor did I learn for several years that without exception the early Church held the doctrine I was presenting, and that not until about 1830 was PreTribulation-Rapturism ever heard of.

PREFACE
Several of these chapters appeared in The Standard Bearer, our monthly paper, from October, 1915, to July, 1916, inclusive under the title, "Will the Church Pass Through the Great Tribulation?" Many times I was asked to reprint them, either in the paper or in book form, or both, and at last decided to do so in both. Beginning April, 1926, the subject was again presented in The Standard Bearer, as I wanted the questions, suggestions, and criticisms of my readers before putting the matter into book form. Not only were many questions asked, suggestions offered, and criticisms presented (which indicated a great interest in the subject), but several readers called my attention to books and pamphlets dealing with it--pro and con--of which I had never before heard. I succeeded in obtaining copies of all these and read them carefully. From some of those favoring this subject I obtained an occasional new thought, but they were principally helpful to me because of their corroboration of what I had discovered by independent thought while reading the Scriptures only. Naturally I was glad to find that others had arrived at the same conclusions on this decidedly unpopular subject, for, like Elijah, in his fight against the dangerous doctrines and false leaders that had led Israel astray, I felt somewhat alone in this fight against what I shall show later is a decidedly modern, dangerous, and flesh-pleasing doctrine, so was glad to learn that the Lord has His "seven thousand" more or less hidden ones who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. 1 Kings 19. Not that I had ever sat down discouraged "under a juniper tree" and prayed for death, or hidden in "a cave" for fear of enemies. Instead, inspired by the experiences of a host of Bible saints, I had determined by the help and grace of God to use every power I possessed to combat this delusive doctrine, even if I were the only one to do so and should never succeed in securing a convert to this "faith of our fathers" regarding the time of the Rapture. Some of the new thoughts and corroborative statements thus discovered I was able to weave into the articles as they were written for The Standard Bearer, sometimes in the body of the articles, occasionally as footnotes or Addenda. Others had to be put in in a similar manner after the articles had been printed in the paper. As the doing of this covered a period of several years, during which time I read and wrote under great difficulties, the reader may discover many defects in these volumes but will understand why they are there. Later I may have time and opportunity to correct these. To this end I invite suggestions along this line also. Why Several Volumes? I had expected to get all I had to say on this subject into one small volume, but this additional and principally corroborative matter dispelled that idea. However, it was not until I had read certain pamphlets and books by well-known and popular writers on the other side that I came to see that I must write regardless of space, for if possible these writers must be met and routed. I sensed the fact that it would not be sufficient merely to present my view in support of PostTribulation-Rapturism, for to do only that might result in some readers remarking, "Well, that is only your way of looking at these Scriptures, and the other man has the right to take the opposite view of them." So I felt I must carry the war into the enemy's country (beard the lion in his den, so to speak), and, if possible,

defeat him on his own territory. To do this, I must present in the very words of these writers their often positively absurd ideas; ideas so absurd that merely to state that these men held them, and then bring my guns to bear on them, would have been to lay myself open to challenge by sensible people whose intellects are not under the control of that deceptive doctrine; for such people could not and would not, on my bare assertion, believe that these rank absurdities are or have been held by men whose very names, in other connections, have become synonymous with great intelligence. This explains why, after presenting my argument in favor of Post-Tribulation-Rapturism, I take up far more space in presenting my replies to these popular Pre-Tribulation-Rapture writers. Wish Better Qualified Men Had Undertaken the Task It seems to me regrettable that the scholarly Post-Tribulation-Rapturist, Dr. Nathaniel West (of whom more later), did not have his "scathing" articles on PreTribulation-Rapturism (referred to later by his friend, Rev. Robert Cameron), preserved in book form, for such a book might have proved very helpful in the fight against this latter-day delusion. Also it seems to me equally regrettable that the perhaps still more scholarly Post-Tribulation-Rapturist, S. P. Tregelles, did not write at greater length on the subject. Following are the reasons he gives for not having done so:
When a point has been established by full proof from Holy Scripture, it is often impossible, and in general needless, to meet each objection or difficulty which may be raised. It is often impossible, because all the modes in which different objectors will find difficulties may be unknown to those who rest on the simple warrants of the Word of God. It is commonly needless, because when we have to do with those who are subject to the authority of God in His Word, full Scripture proof of a point is enough; and also it is felt that the varying grounds taken by objectors, and their contradictions of Scripture, show that they are striving (even though at times unconsciously) against truths which cannot be overthrown. Thus, if we have to establish the Deity of Christ, we bring forward the direct proofs, the distinct statements that He is God over all, blessed for ever, and that He is the Creator, Sustainer, and essentially the Lord of all. We do not think it needful to enquire into every cavil of every objector, and to discuss these one by one, before we regard the point as proved. We do not pretend to meet what may be called the difficulties of the case: indeed, we do wisely not to imagine that we can overcome the prejudice which is proof against the distinct words of inspired prophets and apostles. We have, as well as we are enabled, to state the revealed truth; and then its application can be made with efficacious power by the secret working of the Holy Ghost. Although reference has been made to particular objections, to discuss them in detail has not been attempted. The reasons just stated will suffice for this: answers have been given to some of the ways in which the Scriptures cited have been set aside; but beyond this it is impossible to go without an extensive enquiry into the various modes in which advocates of the Secret Coming and Secret Rapture seek to make the theory plausible. It would be as much to the purpose to discuss all that has been written against the truth that "we are justified freely by the grace of God, for the sake of Christ's merits, through faith", before firmly and definitely setting forth the Gospel. All the grounds of objection to the hope of Christ's people being His glorious appearing, to which I refer, are such as really have been relied on. I do not discuss mere surmises; I notice a few points for the help (as I trust) of some; but I do not charge any one with holding anything which he rejects: different maintainers of the Secret Rapture have taken different grounds. (The Hope of Christ's Second Coming".)

It is true, as Dr. Tregelles says, that it is hopeless to attempt to discuss all the vagaries of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, but I felt that I must discuss as many of them as possible. In his small book, Dr. Tregelles confines himself almost entirely to the presentation of "positive proof"; that is to say, to the simple and direct statement of the Biblical doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ and related events. And this "positive proof" may be enough--for some. But I feel that many others can be helped by the presentation of what perhaps I may term "negative proof"; that is to say, by the exposure of as many Pre-Tribulation-Rapture fallacies as may come to my attention. With Dr. Tregelles I would say, "I do not charge any one with holding anything which he rejects: different maintainers of the Secret Rapture have taken different grounds." But I do say, and I shall prove it from the writings of their own teachers, that every ridiculous idea dealt with in these volumes is held by some branch of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, and that, therefore, every one of them is chargeable to Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism itself. Must Cater to Slow Minds Some will think I should have been more brief, in places, and I could have been; but many years of speaking on Bible subjects has taught me the necessity of explaining at considerable length and of repeating often. Frequently in my classes I find both men and women who get my idea clearly before it is half expressed, and I am glad to deal with such. But more often I find that after I have painstakingly gone into a subject in almost minute detail, there are several who must be told over and over again what is meant. These are fine folk, but their minds work slowly, and because they are fine I never weary of helping them; and I adapt my talks to these, not to those of quick mentalities, for if I can get these to understand clearly there is no question about the others getting things straight. True, the quick ones are bored, often, but what of that? Better that they should be bored than that the others should be neglected. Many things in these volumes, which some will think might have been left to the reader's imagination, have been minutely dealt with, because after several of these articles had been printed in The Standard Bearer in briefer form, letters came from readers, who perhaps and apparently lacked the necessary imagination, asking for further details, which details were furnished by letters and afterward incorporated in the articles. After this had occurred a few times, I decided to leave as little as possible to the imagination. Two Aspects of the Tribulation During the study of this subject, it is of extreme importance that the two aspects of the Great Tribulation be kept clearly in mind, namely, the world-judging and the saint-persecuting. The former is of God, is a punishment, and no true saint need suffer from it; the latter is of Satan, is a privilege, and every true saint will receive his share of it. This will be dealt with at greater length later. Failure to make this distinction has resulted in great confusion, the general teaching being that for one to be found in the Great Tribulation will in itself be evidence that he is out of the Divine order because of spiritual failure. But the presence in it of the faithful "two witnesses", Rev. 11, and the "hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel", who are said to be "sealed" because they are "servants of our God", Rev. 7, indicates this

is not true. Let it be carefully noted here that these "hundred and forty and four thousand" faithful servants of God are sealed as such, not after they have endured enough of the Tribulation judgments to prove their fidelity, but before the Tribulation judgments begin, for in a parenthetical statement John says, "And I saw another angel...having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God." Rev. 7:1-3. If God will permit this faithful Israelitish "remnant" to remain in the Tribulation, for His glory and their blessing, why should He not also let faithful Gentiles remain in it for the same reason?2 Questions and Criticism Invited Not a few letters have come to my desk from Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists who have come across passages of Scripture which they could not harmonize with their belief, and, being too honest to attempt to force them to fit a doctrine which undoubtedly they contradict, these have written me for information. My replies have necessarily been brief, but now such enquirers will be able to get in full the reasons for my belief. Should any part of this subject still be obscure to them, I shall do my best to answer further questions. Should others think they have good reasons for disagreeing with anything set forth in this series of articles, I hope they will give me the opportunity to examine their reasons, which I promise to do to the best of my ability and in a kind and brotherly way. If their reasons compel me to modify or even materially change anything I have set forth, this will be gladly done, for I am a seeker after truth. But let no one make the mistake which a dear old friend of mind made. His letter was very brief. "I reject your doctrine", he wrote. To which I replied, "Only fools say 'I reject', without giving reasons for rejecting. Wise men tell why they reject." He refused to give his reasons and went to his grave rejecting. This was regrettable, for we agreed so nicely on practically all other doctrines and enjoyed talking them over together. But this matter he would not discuss with me. What for so many years he had believed was good enough for him to continue to believe. Is it to be wondered at that I concluded he doubted his ability to defend his own doctrine? I fear he was one of those who learn Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism just as a parrot learns to say "Polly wants a cracker", and who can no more discuss the matter than the parrot can give reasons why one should give her the cracker she asks for. In other words, they accept certain "stock arguments" and "stock texts" without testing the arguments by the Scriptures and without attempting to discover whether the texts quoted are properly connected with their contexts. Therefore, when challenged they are likely to fall back upon the "I decline to discuss" or the "I reject" position, either of which positions any intelligent man should be ashamed to occupy.
2 This thought is dealt with at greater length elsewhere in these volumes. See especially "Tribulation, a Punishment for the Sinner, but a Privilege for the Saint", and "The Alleged Enoch and Noah Type".

THE RIGHT AND THE WRONG WAY TO APPROACH THIS SUBJECT

As stated in the "Foreword", when I began to study the prophetic Scriptures, my mind was "virgin soil". That is to say, I knew nothing about prophecy, therefore had neither bias nor prejudice to influence my study, so it was easy for me to accept whatever I found in the Book on this subject. I had no opportunities to hear speakers on prophecy, and I was too poor to purchase books on prophecy until long after I had discovered what I have set forth in these volumes; for which fact I am now profoundly grateful, for if I had been able to hear many PreTribulation-Rapture speakers or to read many, perhaps any, of the books on prophecy which contained the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture teaching, I might have been greatly hindered in my investigation, for it would have seemed to me presumptuous for one as young and illiterate and as unlearned in prophecy as I was to question what older and educated men were saying about the time of the Rapture. When at last opportunities presented themselves for me to hear prophetic speakers and to read books on prophecy, I had become sufficiently informed on Post-Tribulation-Rapturism to be able to "give a reason" for my belief, and carefully to examine the alleged proofs of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. I think it likely that not many into whose hands this book may fall will be as fortunately situated as I was in this respect; for whereas in those days speakers and writers on prophecy were "few and far between" (consequently comparatively few had heard the one or read the other), today speakers, books and tracts on prophecy are "as numberless as the sands on the seashore", with the result that perhaps almost all Christians have often heard addresses on prophecy and read much literature on the subject. And as with rare exceptions these speakers and this literature set forth with much assurance the Pre-TribulationRapture doctrine, never so much as hinting that it ever has been questioned, it naturally follows that the hearers and readers have become somewhat "rooted and grounded" in their belief in it, so will find it rather difficult to give this opposing doctrine an unbiased and unprejudiced examination, and still more difficult to reverse themselves on it. The purpose of this chapter is to assist all such to approach the subject in the right way. How to Come to the Book Only a short while ago I learned that S. D. ("Quiet Talks") Gordon holds the Post-Tribulation-Rapture doctrine. Brother Gordon does not particularly stress this point, but he says enough about it to make it clear where he stands, and in his own inimitable style he shows the right way to approach this or any other subject.
We want to come to this Book to find out just what it teaches. There is another way of coming to this Book. It is a common way, and a most difficult way to avoid taking. We are so constantly tempted to take it, and may be so accustomed to taking it, that I want to put up a good plain signpost of "Beware" over it. It is the habit of going to the Book to find proofs of what we believe. And it is surprising how, if you are not particular about the connection of words in Scripture--and users of this way usually are not--how you can find something, a phrase, a verse, that seems the very thing you need to prove your point. Our friends who, honestly enough, use this way should remember that it was the way used by the Tempter in the wilderness in trying to turn the Lord aside from the

right. The evil one is a very skillful partial-quoter of Scripture, and has an astonishingly large following, doubtless an unconscious following, among earnest, godly people. There lived a dear old saint of God in Wurtemberg many years ago, who was scholar and philosopher as well as saint. That part of Germany is even yet fragrant with the sweet odor of his name. And all the Western Church is under tribute to John Albert Bengel for his Christliness as well as his scholarship. Bengel had three most remarkable rules for Bible study. They are like John's Gospel in one regard, simple as a child's speech in form, but deep as the Pacific in meaning. The first rule was: "Get everything out of the Bible." That is to say, let it be the teacher. Get your beliefs and information, not from books, but only and wholly from this Book. Do not come to prove your theory but to prove what is truth. That's a hard rule to follow; should I say that it is rarely used? The second rule was: "Read nothing into the Bible." That is a rule yet harder to follow. Maybe it can't be followed fully. Everybody has some bias or prejudice. It's all the stronger when we don't know it's there, as is so often the case. There needs to be a strong purpose and constant practice and much prayer and deep humility of spirit to follow this second rule. Yet only so can one get to the real truth. The third rule is as simple and calls for hard work: "Let nothing remain concealed in the Book." I am quoting these rules freely from memory. The first rule makes the result dependable, as being indeed true. The second rule makes it accurate. The third rule makes it fully rounded, avoiding partial or halfviews, which are so easily gotten hold of. ("Quiet Talks About Our Lord's Return".)

Was This Cowardice? The attitude of a ministerial acquaintance of mine is a sample of an attitude which I have found all too prevalent. This friend having made a call on me, I explained my absence from one of his recent Bible studies thus: "Although I wanted to hear your address on the alleged Pre-Tribulation Rapture, I decided to stay away because I feared to embarrass you by my presence, as you know my opposition to that doctrine. My absence left you free to present your side of the subject to an audience pre-disposed to agree with you." Then, as I happened to be at work on the subject and had the typescript at hand, I intimated that it would give me pleasure to discuss the matter with him privately, in a brotherly way. With that I quoted a passage I had been dealing with and called his attention to its evident meaning when fairly considered. Apparently unable to combat the view presented from it, he said, "But that is only one passage dealing with the subject." "True", I replied, "but I have them all here and would like to take them all up with you." Quickly he said, "But you must not systematize the Scriptures in that way." Amazed, I answered, "Do you mean to say that it is wrong to bring together all the Scriptures bearing upon a given subject and consider them both individually and collectively?" His silence indicated that such was his meaning, yet I knew that to support any doctrine which he believed, and which he knew could be helped by such a procedure, he would do the very thing I was doing.

Seeing his evident reluctance to discuss the matter, in spite of the assurance with which he had publicly presented his side of the question a few nights before, I dropped the matter; for one of my rules is never to force a subject upon anyone, except in self-defense. As the brother was leaving, returning momentarily to the subject, he remarked, "I want to know the truth". Perhaps it is not to be wondered at, in view of his decided unwillingness to discuss the matter with one who from experience he knew would talk to him as kindly as frankly about it, that I felt what he really meant was that he wanted to be left to the enjoyment of his own ideas on the subject. And in this he is but a representative of millions. Some day they will have a sad awakening. An Amazing Letter In some respects the most remarkable letter that has yet reached me concerning this subject is one from a brother who occupies an important position in the "Pentecostal" or "Tongues" movement; a man whose friendship I prize highly, and for whom, apart from this expression of his attitude in this matter, I have great respect. The capitals in the following excepts from his letter are mine, also the numbering of paragraphs.
(1) I have just picked up the December Standard Bearer. I notice that the first page article is now Chapter Seven. I was aware that you had been running this quite a while,...but I have never read any of them until this one I lightly scanned through. I see that you speak of people who believe in the Rapture before the Tribulation putting certain Scriptures aside as only for the Jews. I had not heard of that before. I have listened to Pentecost preachers for years preaching the Rapture before the Tribulation and I never heard any one of them speak of any Scripture as not applying to the Christians. That is a thing that Scofield does, and one of the very things that makes us unwilling to advertise his Bible in "The Pentecostal Evangel". (2) But why do you spend so much time on it? I WILL NOT READ IT. IT IS COMFORTABLE TO BELIEVE THAT WE SHALL BE RAPTURED BEFORE THE TRIBULATION....It is a matter that is of no moral or practical value, therefore WHY SHOULD I GIVE TIME TO MAKE SURE I AM RIGHT? (3) I have great respect for your piety and also for your unusual erudition, and when you have a theme THAT IS IMPORTANT I am delighted to read. I know if I should read your articles I would very likely be convinced that my present ideas are wrong....You are a master at gathering thing together to make your point.... (4) I would not be benefitted in any degree that I can see by such a change of views, and I would be thrown out of harmony with my mates. A heretic is one who teaches things calculated to cause schism. Conceivably a man might be a heretic in that he taught the truth....Without regard to whether your contention is right or wrong it would be heresy for me to teach it. Heresy is a bad thing. With much love and great appreciation of your piety and attainments, I am, as ever, Yours affectionately, -------------------(5) By the way, the assumption made by you that the Irvingite woman who had the prophecy to the effect that the Rapture would precede the Tribulation was of the devil, seems to me to be gratuitous. It must in order to be allowable take for

granted that the point at issue has been proven--at least that, perhaps more than that.

Having read the above, I gasped, then wrote the brother as follows:
Your letter is unworthy of you. If I reply to it at all, it may be publicly. It is the worst letter of its kind I have yet received, and it is a complete "give away" of the position I am combating. Thus it may prove useful to me.

Now for some comments on that letter. Every Pre-Tribulation Rapturist Must Make Some Use of "The Jewish Wastepaper Basket" Paragraph 1. The brother says that, unlike Scofield and his school, the "Pentecostal" people do not throw any of these Scriptures into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, but make every one of them applicable to Christians. We have to look at but one passage of Scripture to see clearly that this is not true. "IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION of those days...shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:...and He shall send His angels with a GREAT SOUND OF A TRUMPET, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds....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." Matt. 24:29-41. Make the "elect" of this Scripture to mean Christian believers, and the "trumpet" to be the trumpet mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thes. 4:16, and the passage becomes absolutely fatal to Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, since it declares that the Rapture here referred to will occur "immediately after the tribulation", not before it. Hence this brother, like all Pre-TribulationRapturists, whether or not of the Scofield school, must, like Scofield, throw this statement of Jesus into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, or be defeated by the first Post-Tribulation-Rapturist with whom he may find it necessary to discuss this subject. All who say the "elect" mentioned here are Christian believers and the "trumpet" referred to is "the last trump" of 1 Cor. 15:52, "the trump of God" of 1 Thes. 4:16, and the "seventh" trumpet of Rev. 11:15, necessarily are PostTribulation-Rapturists. Since, because of its great importance, this Scripture will be dealt with later at considerable length, I shall say no more about it here. Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Preferred Because it is "Comfortable" Paragraph 2. "I will not read it. It is comfortable to believe that we shall be Raptured before the Tribulation. Why should I give time to make sure I am right? No sooner had I started to tell what I had found in the Scriptures on Post-

Tribulation Rapturism, than I ran full tilt into this thing. My teaching made people uncomfortable. They wanted a crown without a cross, a victory without a battle, a reward without a task. Said one sister to me, when I had stressed the need of works to evidence the genuineness of faith, as James and Paul did (James 2:14-26; Romans 3:31; 8:4), "I would rather hear Brother T-- preach than listen to you, because he always tells us what God will do for us whereas you persist in telling us what we must do for God." It was because faith was being over-emphasized at the expense of works, which were conspicuous by their absence, that I preached in that place as I did, making myself a "wet blanket" on their theretofore happy (?) testimony meetings. Time, the inexorable one, proved me right. What that sister said about the "Faith and Works" preaching, because it made her uncomfortable, this brother says in effect about the Post-Tribulation-Rapture teaching. One correspondent put it a little stronger than he expresses it. Tribulation-Rapture teaching terrifies me", he wrote. "Your Post-

What is it that is made uncomfortable or that is terrified by any truth of God but the "weak", cowardly "flesh"? The cross, the battle, the task are always objectionable to "the flesh" but never to "the spirit". Hence the words of Jesus in Gethsemane to His disciples who were avoiding the discomfort of watching with Him in His hour of supreme need: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Matt. 26:41. To this subject I shall refer again later at greater length. The trend of the brother's entire letter shows that in this matter he prefers "the line of least resistance". In this he is like unto the vast majority. Dead fish follow this line, for they drift with the current. But they are to be excused, even pitied, for they are dead, therefore helpless. Live fish, unless sick, take the other course. God pity those who because they want to be comfortable refuse to investigate. Why should one prefer to live in "A Fool's Paradise"? When the leaders (this brother is one, a prominent one) take this stand, what hope is there for the people? Verily it is again true, "The leaders of this people cause them to err." Isaiah 9:16. Like a sad refrain, this thought runs right through the Book; and history is ever repeating itself. One thing about this part of the brother's letter commends itself to me. puts into words what many think but will not say. Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism or Post-Tribulation Rapturism? An Important Present-day Problem Paragraph 3. The brother thinks this doctrine is not important enough to merit examination. This might have been said many years ago with some show of reason, but in these days, when "end things" are so rapidly developing, there is nothing in the "latter day" prophetic Scriptures that is not of vast importance, and this subject is as important as any, and more important than most. In an article on the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture", to which I shall reply later, W. E. Blackstone, author of "Jesus Is Coming", says, "Shall the Church escape the He

Tribulation or must we pass through it? This is an infinitely important question." And every one who will give this matter serious thought will agree with Mr. Blackstone in this, as I do, even while I expose the weakness or absurdity of his Pre-Tribulation Rapture arguments. In the same paragraph the brother says that I am "a master at gathering things together" to make my point. He may be stating a fact, but whether under the circumstances his words are to be taken as a compliment or the reverse is a question. How are we to get at Biblical truth except by "gathering together" everything touching on a certain subject, if that be possible, and then, by means of the whole, reaching a conclusion? That is what I am attempting in these volumes, and because I have been so anxious to do this, I have taken the risk of criticism for prolixity. What does this brother, and those like him, want? A mutilated, an emasculated Word? Let him and them go to the Modernists for it. These Fundamentalist Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists boast of accepting the Bible "from cover to cover", but on the subject of the Rapture they want from it only what, by a mere superficial examination, seems to confirm their pet doctrine and thus make them "comfortable". A serious charge to make, I know; but the facts justify it. Prefers Error With Fellowship To Truth With Ostracism Paragraph 4. What an amazing statement! He would rather teach a lie and remain in fellowship with his "mates" than teach a truth and run counter to them! Not so would Jesus. Had the Lord followed that course He would not have been crucified as a trouble maker. So would not Peter and Paul or any other real warrior for God in any age or in any place. Fortunately, I know this brother to be a much finer man than his letter would indicate; one who, if once convinced of the seriousness of the matter, would stand firm for what he believed about it. Says the brother: "Heresy [even if it be God's truth, mark you!] is bad." What bad men Luther, Wesley, Fox and a host of others were! In writing as he did, the brother condemned tens of thousands of his Pentecostal brethren, for it is doubtful if any movement has caused more people in so short a time to get out of touch with their "mates" than has the "Tongues" movement; for the Pentecostalists are nothing if not aggressive in the presentation of their views. Judged by this test they are, almost all, heretics of the worst kind. They claim to have discovered a long-neglected Bible truth and believe they should zealously proclaim it, let the consequences be what they may. And this they do in every part of the world, to the serious disruption of denominational work in the foreign mission field as well as in the various homelands. This is as it should be, if what they teach really is true. But why condemn Post-TribulationRapturists for doing what the Pentecostalists do? I thank God that once convinced I am right, and that my opponents cannot meet me in fair debate, I never hesitate, when necessary, to be a heretic and preach what I believe, even though it is "calculated to cause schism". Once upon a time it was charged against me that I split a meeting. When I asked, "Which side stood by me?" the answer was, "Our best people." I smiled and let it go at that. The same thing has happened several times since.

I do not say that I would unduly stress this or any other Biblical truth anywhere or at any time. On the contrary, occasionally I refuse to take up some Biblical subjects, this among them, because I do not want to cause trouble. But when occasion seems to require my presenting any Biblical doctrine, I take it up, no matter though it bring ostracism from every friend, blows from every foe, the opposition of all hell, and split a religious gathering in two. Yea, if under such circumstances "an angel from heaven" bade me desist, I would challenge his right to do so. Gal. 1:8. Prove me wrong and I will retract. Until then I dare not refrain when occasion seems to require speech. Some of my over-zealous friends have even accused me of cowardice, because I have remained silent when they thought I should have spoken. But I have to give account to God, not to man. Paragraph 5. Naturally, being a Pentecostal man, the brother takes exception to my assumption that the Irvingite woman who was responsible for the introduction of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism about 1830, after the Church had believed and taught Post-Tribulation-Rapturism for eighteen centuries, was deceived by the devil, and that her associates were deceived by him through her. I refer my fair-minded readers to the chapter on "The Origin of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism" for proof that this woman was indeed deceived by the devil as "an angel of light"; and since that is true, necessarily all who have since accepted the doctrine which grew out of that alleged "Spirit message" have been similarly deceived. About five years after that letter was received, there appeared in the Pentecostal weekly paper with which this brother is connected a sermon by the Rev. Donald Gee, in which Brother Gee, a most estimable and godly man, commented on the fact, as he alleged and as I can well believe, that Post-Tribulation-Rapturism was then causing considerable discussion and creating some dissension in Pentecostal circles. As Brother Gee seemed inclined to blame our teaching for this discussion and dissension, I shall reply to him in a later volume under the heading, "Who Is Responsible for the Splits?" Also, and probably as a result of this discussion and dissension, the Rev. J. Narver Gortner, a man with whom I am acquainted and whom I esteem highly, and one of the best Bible students in the Pentecostal work, issued a pamphlet, "Are the Saints Scheduled to Go Through the Tribulation?", to which also I shall reply, D.V., in a later volume.

"MOB PSYCHOLOGY" AN AID TO PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM

I had been listening to a lecture by Norman Angell, the noted English essayist, on "Ideas that Assassinate" in which he related this incident: He was on the platform of a large hall in England during what was to have been a discussion of national problems by representatives of the two principal political parties of Great Britain who were seeking election to Parliament. The World War had recently ended, and the so-called "Hymn of Hate" of Germany had aroused no more bitterness among that people against their enemies than certain speeches by some of Great Britain's alleged leaders had begotten in the hearts of her citizens. The first speaker was a far-sighted statesman. As he proceeded with his address, counseling moderation in dealing with the defeated foe, giving as one of his reasons the economic harm to the victors as well as to the vanquished that would result from the carrying out of certain suggested policies, the audience grew restless. He was trying to make them think, and this they did not want to do. But the speaker persisted. More and more restless grew the audience, and suddenly a man sprang to his feet and shouted, "We don't want to hear any more about that. What we want to know is, are you in favor of hanging the Kaiser, of punishing the bloody Germans, and of making them pay all the cost of the war? Yes or no?" Instantly the mob--for that is all it was--began in a sing-song way to repeat, "Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no?" effectually preventing the speaker from continuing his address. The other speaker was what we call "a practical politician"--that bane of all countries, no matter by what name called. He had no far-sighted, constructive policy as had his opponent. He cared little for the welfare of mankind in general, or of his own nation in particular. What he wanted was a seat in Parliament. Taking his cue from the attitude of the audience, his entire talk consisted of a rehash of all the silly "war lies" that had been circulated about the Germans--a part of the vile "war propaganda" of all the nations engaged in that Titanic struggle, our own nation, to its shame, not excepted. Loud cheers greeted his almost every statement, and when he closed with the declaration that he was in favor of carrying out the will of the people as it had been expressed by the questioner--"the people" whose voice is so often declared to be "the voice of God", but which is far more often the voice of the devil--the audience went wild, and that man's election was assured. Bitter have been the results of so many men of that type having had the handling of British affairs during those critical reconstruction days, as that nation has discovered and is still discovering. Infinitely better if the constructive thinkers could have had a careful hearing. But such men have to wait, usually until the mischievous policies of the other class have produced a bad harvest. Then they are called in to try to undo the harm that has been done because they were thrust aside for more popular men and measures. That was "mob psychology" in connection with political affairs. Arriving home I picked up a copy of The Sunday School Times, an excellent and valuable paper, one with which I seldom disagree. Among the stories used to illustrate the Easter Lesson was this:

The Bolshevist's "Triumph". "He is risen: He is not here." Verse 6. In a large public assembly hall in Moscow a public lecture was given by Comrade Lunatscharsky, the Bolshevist Commissary for Popular Education, attacking the "obsolete faith". This faith, he said, was a product of the capitalist class, but was now completely overthrown; its nullity was easy to prove. The address seemed successful, and the lecturer was so pleased with his own eloquence that, feeling complete confidence in himself, he brought it to an end by inviting a discussion of this theme, but with the stipulation that no speaker was to occupy more than five minutes. Anyone who wished to address the meeting was to give his name. There came forward a young priest with a close-cropped beard, of homely appearance, shy and awkward--a typical village priest. Lunatscharsky looked down at him scornfully. "Remember, not more than five minutes." "Yes, certainly. I shall not take long." The priest then mounted the platform, turned to the audience, and said, "Brothers and sisters, Christos Woskresse! (Christ is risen!)" This was the solemn Easter greeting exchanged by all on Easter night. As one man the great audience answered, "Woistinu Woskresse! (Verily He is risen!)" Turning to Lunatscharsky the young priest said, "I have finished. I have no more to say." The meeting was at once closed. All Comrade Lunatscharsky's flowery eloquence availed him nothing.--From "The Record", Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Prize Illustration.

As I laid the paper down I asked, What is the difference between "mob psychology" in connection with religion and "mob psychology" in connection with politics? Are they not equally regrettable because equally mischievous? And I could feel no more sympathy with the parrot-like cry of those Russian religionists than I could with the equally parrot-like cries of those British electors. In both cases, the mob from childhood had followed "the line of least resistance" in matters requiring thought, by swallowing what their leaders fed them. And both mobs had responded, not to men who were trying to think things out, but to men who knew how to use "mob psychology" to accomplish their ends; a cowardly, contemptible, yea, a dastardly and damnable thing to do, no matter if one was a priest and the other a politician. All such priests and politicians in their places should be put--for the spiritually--constructive thinkers who out for themselves and so be prepared, every man who asks them questions. should be compelled to do manual work; and good of mankind, politically and can teach the people how to reason things as far as possible, to give an answer to

Of course, I believe that "Christ is risen", but I say that a company of believers in His resurrection should be ready to give their sceptical opponents something better than a mob yell in answer to their criticisms on the faith. To my mind, the priestly creedist was not nearly so commendable as was the arguing atheist, for the latter was trying to make the people think; and careful thought tends to show that the resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested facts in history. Not long after the foregoing was written, I clipped the following from "The Dayton Herald":
NEW HAVEN, Conn., April 15, [1931?]--(UP)--Popular desires are "no criteria to the real need", President Hoover informed Yale students today in an article written for the Yale News and published with official sanction. Discussing the psychology of leadership and crowds, the president concludes that popular desires "can be determined only by deliberative consideration, by education, by constructive leadership".

"Human leadership", says President Hoover's article, "cannot be replenished by selection like queen bees, by divine right, or bureaucracies, but by the free rise of ability, character and intelligence. The crowd "consumes, it hates, and it dreams, but it never builds", says the article. "The mob functions only in the world of emotion." Demagogues, he explained, feed on mob emotions and their leadership is therefore the leadership of emotions, not the leadership of intellect and progress.

And this by Arthur Brisbane, the noted columnist, clipped from the same paper June 27, 1933.
The late Professor Shaler, who taught geology at Harvard, wrote a book on the mob, telling the difference between individuals acting separately and in mob formation. He declared that a group of clergymen, under the right mob influence, might be started on a lynching expedition. News comes from Germany that the most rampant, radical, communistic "red" groups of workers in Germany are now enthusiastic Nazis, eager to put on their brown shirts and march under Hitler's orders. Men believe that they think for themselves, but, like wolves, what they want is a leader of the pack.

There is much "mob psychology" in Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. Ever I am discovering that its advocates are short on facts and long on slogans and phrases. But snappy slogans and smart phrases prove nothing. Usually they are devised to prevent thought. I can conceive of a Post-Tribulation-Rapturist, presenting his reasons for his belief to a company of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, being suddenly interrupted by an opponent better versed in "mob psychology" than informed on the pros and cons of the subject being presented, who, by use of certain slogans and familiar phrases, could soon have the audience shouting the speaker down; for I have experienced some things that show this to be not impossible.3
3 Long after this was written, two acquaintances of mine, one a Pentecostal minister, the other a Russellite layman, engaged in a discussion in The Dayton Herald on the subject of "Eternal Torment"; the minister taking the affirmative. Finally arrangements were made for them to debate the subject from the platform of Memorial Hall, the largest auditorium in the city. The debate was conducted in the usual unsatisfactory way. As a debater, the minister was outclassed. Quietly his opponent presented his case, and as quietly he propounded questions to and replied to questions by the minister. The minister rose to make his concluding remarks. Instead of making another attempt to reply to his opponent, he gave a brief harangue, then quickly drew from beneath his coat a large American flag, and began to wave it. In an instant the thoughtless mob, for such it was, even if all were church members, was yelling itself hoarse, and the minister and his supporters supposed he had won the debate. But a few thoughtful people doubted that. To them--and they were not all Russellites or anti-Eternal Torment folk--it looked as though the minister, from the first fearing the result of the debate, had arranged as a last resort to make use of "mob psychology". Another acquaintance of mine, a professed Bible teacher, in my young manhood, in England, told me confidentially how he was able always to appear to get the better of an opponent in a discussion. If he found himself in danger of defeat, he said, he would permit his opponent to do the talking until he himself could catch at some word or phrase with which to create a practically new issue, force that new issue, and so win or appear to win the fight. While admitting his shrewdness--the shrewdness of a shyster lawyer--his plan was repugnant to me as an honest seeker after truth; and my respect for him as our leader in those far-away days suffered a serious slump. When, later, I was compelled to contend with him about certain doctrines which he was teaching, and which I knew would inevitably result in serious trouble in our midst, if allowed to continue to be taught, I remembered his plan, refused to let him sidetrack me, forced him to defend himself on the main issue, and then and

That this is not saying too much is evident from the absurd way in which the Rev. I. M. Haldeman deals with the Post-Tribulation-Rapturists in his book, "The Coming of Christ", page 287. Unable to meet their objections to Pre-TribulationRapturism, he attempts to create prejudice against them by saying, "They are PostMillennialists in disguise." (The emphasis is his.) This ridiculous charge cannot but arouse the contempt of fair-minded people, yet by its means, manifestly false though it is, he no doubt has aroused strong prejudice against Post-TribulationRapturism in the minds of thousands of unthinking Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists. The reverend gentleman adds to his libelous statement this--which explains why he does not get out into the open and face the Post-Tribulation-Rapturists fairly--"They are more dangerous than Post-Millennialists." (In this case the emphasis is mine.) He then proceeds to show how easy it is to rout the Post-Millennialists by means of Scripture simply quoted. But unwittingly he confesses that he cannot do this with the Post-Tribulation-Rapturists for, although he states their position quite clearly, he leaves their questions unanswered.

there ended his career as our leader. What is the use of holding an error, which can only harm one in this world and shame one in the world to come, when it is possible to get the truth? What folly to contend for a doctrine, when that doctrine cannot be contended for honestly, sanely, Scripturally and logically! If an opponent can present unassailable evidence of the falsity of a theory, the part of wisdom is to make a friend of that opponent, sit at his feet, learn of him, and experience for one's self the truth of the saying: "Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." Proverbs 3:17. Many times I have done this, so I am merely preaching here what I have often practiced. Such tactics as I have described are a veritable spawn of hell, and should be "taboo" to all Christians; and they are "taboo" to every honest investigator.

HIRING OTHERS TO DO THEIR THINKING

Again, as illustrative of the way in which otherwise intelligent men leave their thinking to their ministers instead of thinking things through for themselves: While on one of my visits to Ireland, I was invited to meet a few English businessmen at dinner. At the dinner table our host brought the conversation around to certain Biblical doctrines, as all present were professed Christians. I did not want to take part in the discussion, but was compelled to do so, for certain very direct questions were put to me and answers were insisted upon. My answers brought an attack, which I promptly met and repulsed. Then I took the offensive and soon had the opposition hunting for cover. Finally one of the foremost of my aggressors, after admitting his inability to continue the discussion which he had helped provoke (because he had never thought these things out for himself but was dependent upon the arguments which he had heard his minister present many times from the pulpit, which arguments I had successfully refuted), asked, "What do we pay our preachers for but to think these things out for us? And when they have done that, why should we not accept what they say?" To which I replied that that was exactly the line of reasoning (?) indulged in by the overwhelming Roman Catholic population of the city in which we then were, that it was unworthy of Protestants; and that so far as I was concerned, I was paying no one to do my thinking for me, for inasmuch as I must give to God an account for myself, I was determined to think for myself before that day of accounting came. Then I changed the subject. If all preachers really were thinkers instead of being mere theological sponges, as so many of them are, soaking up what they find in the theological seminaries as though it were the very water of life itself, it might be safe to leave one's thinking to them. But here are two homely illustrations which show that real thinking is almost as rare among the clergy as it is among the laity. Are "All the Big Men" Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists? A minister in this city had presented from certain popular books the alleged evidence in support of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, had mentioned my name as that of the only man of whom he had ever heard who held the Post-Tribulation-Rapture view, and had then remarked that apparently all the big men among the believers in the Second Coming of Christ, several of whom he named, believed in Pre-TribulationRapturism, hence it must be true. This having been reported to me by members of my Bible Class, at our next meeting I wrote these two columns of names on the blackboard. Pre-Tribulation Rapturists F. E. C. I. R. A. A. T. A. B. James I. M. Marsh Scofield Torrey Pierson Simpson M. Gray Haldeman Post-Tribulation-Rapturists George Muller S. P. Tregelles W. J. Erdman F. F. Bosworth Nathaniel West Robert Cameron Oswald J. Smith

C. W. J. G.

H. Mackintosh E. Blackstone Wilbur Chapman Campbell Morgan

W. E. Biederwolf4 Charles H. Spurgeon James H. McConkey S. D. ("Quiet Talks") Gordon

Then I asked if the Post-Tribulation-Rapturist list of names was not quite as impressive, from the viewpoint of scholarship, as the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist list. Also I asked what had the fact that certain men believe in Pre-TribulationRapturism to do with the matter. Was it not a subject that should be settled by the Scriptures, not by the opinions held by men--no matter how estimable, popular, learned, and numerous they might be? Further, I called attention to the significant fact that at least four of the men whose names appear on the Post-Tribulation-Rapture list--Muller, West, Smith, and Bosworth--reversed themselves after a careful examination of the alleged evidence in support of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism; and stated that I could add the names of other men who, after teaching Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism for years, had come to the conclusion that the alleged evidence in support of the doctrine is not to be found in the Scriptures, but only in the minds of men. And I emphasized the fact that one man who, after teaching Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism for many years, had come to see that he had no foundation in Scripture for his faith, was a better witness in this matter than ten thousand men who had never carefully examined the evidence for Post-Tribulation-Rapturism, no matter who they were or what their position. "How Do They Get That Way?" Then I asked: Did men like Torrey, Chapman, et al. get the Pre-TribulationRapture doctrine from the Bible after a careful and absolutely independent and unbiased search in that Book, as did these other men and myself our PostTribulation-Rapturism? Or did they get it from the books of men who, in turn, had learned it from the books of other men, and so on back to John Darby? I venture to answer that every one of them got it from some previous writer's book. In other words, that when they became interested in the Second Coming of Christ, they read books dealing with that subject and, while imbibing the truth which those books contained about the Second Coming, they also imbibed the errors which they contained about the ridiculous alleged "two stages of His Coming". At the next meeting of the class, a lady handed me a copy of the latest edition of W. E. Blackstone's "Jesus Is Coming", from one of the front pages of which I read the following letters--proof that my guess was correct that these men had obtained their Pre-Tribulation-Rapture doctrine from man, and then having swallowed the error with the truth and having publicly committed themselves, had
4 In reply to a question from me as to his position in this matter, July, 1926, Mr. Biederwolf wrote: "You have 'gotten me' exactly right. I did have a strong leaning toward Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, but having the purpose only of pure exegesis in mind in the writing of the Millennium Bible, I could not honorably do otherwise than give the interpretations as you have found them on the chapter to which you refer. I have since then gone into the subject, and have done considerable work in the way of resume, and I am leaning strongly to the Post-Tribulation-Rapture theory. I wish it were possible for you and myself, and one or two others whom I could mention, to get together and give some study to this." The "chapter" to which Mr. Biederwolf refers in the foregoing is the second chapter of Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, and the "interpretations" of that chapter will be found in "What Did Paul Teach the Thessalonians?" (Part Two.) in Volume 2.

never really attempted to separate "the precious from the vile", as had George Muller, Nathaniel West, Oswald Smith, Fred Bosworth and others.
The book, "Jesus Is Coming", by W. E. B., was the first book that made the coming of Jesus Christ a living reality to me. I had already become convinced that our Lord's coming would be before the Millennium, having reached that conclusion in studying the works of the Danish theologian, Martensen, but it was merely a theological conception until I read the book "Jesus Is Coming". It was this that first brought me to definite convictions and made the doctrine not only clear, but very precious It is one of the books that has had a decidedly formative influence on my life and teaching. I always recommend it to those who are beginning the study of the subject. I hope that it may be as much blessed to others as it has been to me.

R. A. TORREY
A number of years ago I had placed in my hands the little book, "Jesus Is Coming", by W. E. B. Prior to that time I had no defined method of Bible study, and I confess with shame that I had very little passion for Bible reading and for the winning of souls. This book completely revolutionized my thinking, gave me a new conception of Christ and a new understanding of what it meant to work for Him. I most cordially commend it to Christian workers everywhere.

J. WILBUR CHAPMAN Then from Blackstone's own chapter on "Rapture and Revelation" in "Jesus Is Coming", I refuted the doctrine of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, as I shall do in a later volume under the heading, "'Rapture and Revelation': A reply to W. E. Blackstone". An Average Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist Preacher Later, I talked the matter over with this minister, and soon had him even more hopelessly tangled up than certain members of my class (members of his own congregation, by the way) had tangled him up. The result was that he announced his intention of leaving the subject alone, as he was not sufficiently informed on it to defend his own position. In his previous pastorates, he said, his congregation, like little nestlings, had opened their mouths and taken in anything he offered them; but it was not so with this congregation, for some of them asked awkward questions and demanded answers to these questions which he was not able to give. He admitted that he had been compelled to "dig" into the Scriptures as never before in order to counteract the effects of certain teachings which some of his members had obtained through several years' attendance at my class. But the trouble was that he had not imitated the good example of the Bereans, after whom my class was named, and of whom it is said that they "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so". Acts 17:11. He had "searched the Scriptures daily" to try to prove that "these things" were not so, and later admitted that he had lamentably failed. This minister frankly stated that he dared not preach Post-TribulationRapturism even if convinced of its truth, as it would place him in antagonism with his denomination and jeopardize his position. Inasmuch as he held ministerial papers in that denomination, which almost if not quite to a member is PreTribulation-Rapturist, he was, he thought, in duty bound to preach that doctrine.

His honesty and frankness in this matter were refreshing to me, even if I could not approve of his position. The brother's statement reminded me of an experience I had had several years before. A lady, attending some of my meetings, convinced that what she heard there was true, asked, "Why doesn't our minister teach these things?" I replied that I did not know, and suggested that she ask him. At the next meeting she informed me that she had asked the minister if he thought that what I was teaching was true; when he answered in the affirmative and she asked why, then, did he not teach them? he replied, "Because I have a family to support." I hope such ministers are in the minority, but fear they are not. Do not think there is any friction between this minister and myself, for there is none. On the contrary, we are very good friends, for his nature is too gentle to permit of his indulging rancor, and I certainly have no desire to display it. One day I gave him this advice: Until you are prepared to defend PreTribulation-Rapturism, or until you are ready to come over to Post-TribulationRapturism and take the consequences of presenting that doctrine, keep silent as to the time of the Rapture, if you can. If you must mention it, and probably you will be compelled to do so if you continue to preach on the Second Coming, as you should, then, when you present Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, just remark that while you think this to be true, yet there are others just as honest and capable as yourself who do not agree with it. That will prevent friction and be the truth. Another Dayton minister with whom, in spite of our differences of opinion on various subjects, I am on very friendly terms, said, when a member of his congregation asked him a question about the time of the Rapture, "I have repeatedly told my people to stay away from John Scruby's Bible Class because he gets them all mixed up." But he could not answer the question. A case of asking for bread and receiving a stone.

EMOTION, NOT REASON, THE BASIS OF PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM

Long after the foregoing was written, I came across the followingwritten by S. P. Tregelles in 1864, which shows that in its spirit Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism was in his day precisely what it is in our day. So good is his chapter on this subject that I could not forbear quoting him thus extensively.
There is sternness in the truth of God, which might almost seem like harsh severity, when it is regarded by those whose thoughts on subjects of revelation have been formed in a great measure from sentiment and emotion. An imaginative feeling may exist; and this may be so cherished that even the Scripture is only used for sentimental purposes; and thus the force of definite truth is by no means felt, because the mind has sunk into a kind of spiritual reverie: indeed, there is a disposition to avoid definite truth, from a contrast that has been formed between it and that which is supposed to be spiritual.... Emotional religion has always a tendency to make feeling the standard of what should be received as truth, and what rejected. A certain kind of high-wrought feeling (approaching to mysticism, or amounting to it) is that which is allowed to rule the judgment as to whatever God has revealed; and sometimes these indefinite claims to spirituality are accepted by others, so that the doctrines of such teachers are supposed to be worthy of all acceptance, not because they are found in Holy Scripture, but because they are said to be true by such holy and devoted men. But if we would judge according to God, we must test all claims to holiness and devotedness by means of truth, and not merely do the reverse. Asceticism is not Christian holiness; the zeal of Francis Xavier is not Christian devotedness. It is very manifest that the doctrine of a Secret Coming of Christ, and a Secret Removal of the Church to be with Him, is peculiarly suited to those who cherish the religion of sentiment.5 What more cheering (they say) than the thought that the Lord may take His people to Himself at any moment? What more animating than the belief that this may take place this very day? And when any one brings them to Scripture, and tries to point out the revealed hope of the Lord's coming, it seems as if there were nothing but coldness in the teaching, and as if the Lord were put far off from them. They ask sometimes if such chilling doctrines can be consistent with love to the Lord, and whether love to His person does not exclude the thought of a revealed interval, and of events that will take place first. It is thus that truth is judged by sentiment and emotion, instead of true emotions, which are according to God, being formed by truth in all its definite severity. Whatever makes the feelings sit in judgment on Scripture, and whatever thus leads to the avoidance of the force of that Scripture teaching which is not in accordance with such feelings, must, however apparently sanctified and spiritual, be of nature, and not of God. Are we to seek to be guided by other hopes than those which animated the Apostolic Church? They knew that days of darkness would set in before Christ's coming; they were instructed respecting the many Antichrists and the final Anti-Christ, but so far from their hope of the coming of the Lord and of resurrection being thus set aside, they were able to look onward through the darkness to the brightness of the morning.

5 It is as impossible to discuss a question Scripturally with those who are guided by emotion and sentiment, as it was for Greatheart, in the second part of "Pilgrim's Progress", to arouse Heedless and Too-bold when sleeping on the Enchanted Ground. (This footnote by Dr. Tregelles.)

Post-Tribulation-Rapturists are Intelligently Watching and Waiting Dr. Tregelles continues,

It may freely be owned that those who think it right to expect the Lord at any moment, and who sternly condemn others who maintain that His appointed signals shall take place first, have often in their hearts much real love for Him; and love towards His person is never to be regarded lightly. But let such remember the prayer of the Apostle, "That your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment" (Phil. 1:9): it is not only of importance that love should be rightly directed as to its object, but also that there should be in the soul real spiritual intelligence. If a wife has the promise of her husband's return from a distant country, and she has his written directions for the rule of the house during his absence, and part of these directions includes a statement how his return shall be expected, that a letter will first arrive to say by what ship he will come--there would be no want of love (and that, too, intelligent love) on her part, if she sought to be occupied day by day as he directed, and if she showed that she believed his word that the promised letter should come, and that then he would himself arrive by the appointed vessel. She would be waiting according to his word and will; and no one could reproach her for want of love to her lord from not being on the tip-toe of momentary expectation. But if the wife were to say that the part of her husband's directions respecting the promised letter related to the servants of the house, and not to her, and if she were to be constantly on the shore, expecting her husband's landing in a way that he had not promised, and if she refused to be brought to attend simply to what her husband had said--she would, while professing to do this out of love to him, show that she was a visionary, and not one whose love was guided by the simple intelligence of her husband's mind as distinctly expressed: feeling would have led away from true obedience. There are, indeed, those who say that love can allow of nothing as between their souls and the coming of the Lord; they avoid any real scriptural inquiry on the subject; and when events prophesied by our Lord are pointed out, they say that their views are directed upward, that there they find their strength, in contrast to "men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth." (Luke 21.26.) And thus they avoid the force of even our Lord's words, through a supposed spirituality. Men's hearts may be dismayed, but this will not apply to believers, who would see in that which caused dismay to others the bright prospect of deliverance to themselves, for the coming of the Lord would be at hand.... Those who make sentimentally the secret rapture the center of all their thoughts, have habitually shown how utterly their love fails towards any Christians who object to this theory. They often speak of them as if such were devoid of love to Christ, and they treat them as if that were the case. It might seem as if they had made that one point (in which they are led by feeling, not be Scripture) the very test of Christian profession. Pages 82-95 "The Hope of Christ's Second Coming".

WHAT AN UNBIASED STUDY OF THE SUBJECT WILL DO

One day, in or about the year 1895, I sat with many hundreds of others in the grove at Old Orchard, Maine, listening to an able exposition of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Nathaniel West, a then noted Pre-Millennial speaker and author of "The Thousand Years", etc. The speaker's manner puzzled me when he came to that part of the chapter dealing with the Great Tribulation. Finally it dawned upon me that he was speaking very guardedly and at times seemed embarrassed. The absence of the usual positive declaration that the Church would be taken away before that time of trouble was so marked that I found myself thinking, "Can it be possible that he does not believe as the others do? If so, he is the first I have heard or read about who does not endorse the popular belief, and I doubt if there is another in all this large audience who believes as we do. If it be so, no wonder he feels embarrassed." At the close of the meeting, I met the aged D.D. as he left the platform and put to him the point-blank question, "Doctor, do you believe the Church will be taken away before the Great Tribulation?" Before he could reply, a much younger man who was assisting him, and whom I knew to be a believer in the popular doctrine, said, "The Doctor is tired. He had better not discuss the matter." I was about to turn away when the old gentleman said sternly to the younger man, "Leave me alone", and to me, "Come to our cottage and we will talk it over." So to the cottage I went with him, the Doctor's friend, who was also his host, maintaining a silence that was eloquent of disapproval. Arriving at the cottage he entered the house leaving the Doctor and me seated in rockers on the porch. As we were total strangers, the Doctor did not know my belief, whatever he may have inferred from my question. Almost irritably he began to question me and, as best I could, I answered him. I soon found that he was decidedly opposed to the common belief, for at one point, while speaking of it, he said scornfully, "They call it Scripture exegesis!" and then added, almost savagely, "Exegesis! I would like to exegete them with a cowhide!"1 More than thirty years later I learned from Robert Cameron's book, "Scriptural Truth About the Lord's Return", how Nathaniel West came to change his view, and why he felt as he did about his one-time friends and admirers but later unreasonable critics and strong opponents. Contemptible Methods So well does Robert Cameron show the prejudice and consequent unfairness of most, and the added stupidity of many prominent Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists in connection with this subject, that I quote generously from him in this connection (the words in brackets are mine), the better to show the nobility of Nathaniel West, remarking in passing that my own experience in this matter has been very similar to his. Under the heading "Was This Cowardice?", I have related a personal experience--only one of many--which reads very much like some of those mentioned by Cameron.
The writer [Robert Cameron], on invitation, has twice been face to face with leading teachers of the [Pre-Tribulation-Rapture] views, twice trying to reach a harmonious ground for teaching the truth concerning the last things. Once the meeting was in 1 A stout flexible whip made of rawhide.

London, England, and once in Seattle, America. As those with whom the conference was held in London have gone to be with their Lord, their names may be freely mentioned. They were R. C. Morgan [of the firm of Morgan and Scott, publishers of "The Christian", I presume], Dr. McKilliam [editor of "the Morning Star], and Sir Robert Anderson. Mr. Morgan introduced the conversation by expressing his regret that evangelical men, holding to the truth of the Lord's Coming as the hope of the Church, could not give a united testimony on prophecy. He then appealed to the writer to state the terms of harmony. It was immediately answered that no one regretted the lack of harmony more than the writer, and that the controversy could easily be settled by pointing out a single Scripture, distinctly stating, even by a fair inference, that the Church would be caught away to meet the Lord before the Great Tribulation. That would settle everything. Sir Robert Anderson immediately opened the Bible that lay on the table. On reading verses 14-17 of the fourth chapter of First Thessalonians, he said, "There it is." The reply was this: "The Rapture and the Advent are there, but nothing is said about the Tribulation, whether it comes before, or during, or after the Tribulation."[2] Then, after a few moments hesitation, Sir Robert closed the Bible and said: "Well, then, let us agree to disagree, and let neither side say any more about the matter in dispute." To this ready assent was given. Then Sir Robert said, as near as I can now recall: "I know that my dear mother, along with Lady Powerscourt, J. N. Darby, and Lord Congleton, on their knees in prayer, [3] sought to know the mind of the Lord, and I am sure it was given to them." Each one of us then engaged in prayer, and when dear Morgan poured out his heart in thanksgiving and prayer, all of us were deeply moved. We parted, and in a few weeks I was back in America. To my great surprise, Dr. McKilliam had filled the previous issue of "The Morning Star" with an intense defence of the position which he had agreed to leave alone. Of course "Watchword and Truth" [Cameron's paper] made reply without referring directly or indirectly to the London agreement.[4] Afterwards came a sharp letter from Sir Robert to the writer, complaining of "a breach of faith". The writer replied that Dr. McKilliam was the guilty brother, and what was said in "Watchword and Truth" was in the natural order. Sir Robert's answer was: "No one pays any attention on this side of the Atlantic..."--I will not complete the quotation.

Sir Robert regarded Cameron's Post-Tribulation-Rapturism as the heretical notion of a mere American, therefore beneath the notice of Britishers, yet the great part of what little literature I have seen on the subject is by Englishmen-S.P. Tregelles, the greatest Bible scholar that country has produced, Edward Shackleton, Frank H. White and others, while Spurgeon, England's greatest preacher, and George Muller, the modern world's greatest "faith" man, both staunch PostTribulation-Rapturists, were then residing on that "side of the Atlantic". And I, too, was a British subject, living in England, when I discovered and began to teach
2 In "What Did Paul Teach the Thessalonians?" (Part One) in Volume 2, I shall deal with this Scripture. 3 That these people felt they should go to their knees on this subject convicts them. The Scriptures are clear enough for those who are willing to believe what the Lord has said about it, as He said it. These people did not want to do that, for reasons which will be found in "The Origin of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism". Such prayer is an insult to God, and the result, "strong delusion", 2 Thes. 2:11,12, which came to them, reminds one of the words: "He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul." Psalm 106:15. The Plymouth Brethren, which company they founded, are quick to condemn others who adopt such a course in connection with other Bible subjects. 4 To my mind this was a mistake. This is a fight forced by our opponents, hence fighting methods must be used. J.J.S.

this truth. So the country which produced Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism has also produced many of its opponents. But to continue quoting Robert Cameron:
Again, a few years afterwards, an effort was made in Seattle in the presence of three distinguished teachers, in a conference with the writer, having the same end in view. To the same appeal the writer again said: "The dispute can be ended at once by pointing out even one Scripture that teaches the Pre-Tribulation Rapture." The brother who has been proclaiming these "novelties" all over America, both by tongue and pen, brought forward two or three Scriptures which were quickly shown to have no definite bearing upon the question at issue. Then, in the most reverential way, this brother said: "Well, I think if a child of God earnestly seeks, on his knees in prayer, to be guided to a knowledge of the truth, he will not be mistaken. I have sought to know the mind of the Lord, and these are my decided conclusions." Did he go to the Lord as a candidate goes to his bishop "to be confirmed"? If so, he certainly got what he sought. No reflection is here made against prayer in connection with the study of the Word of God. "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law." Psalm 119:18. It is one thing, however, to ask God to give light in the interpretation of Scripture and quite another to pray for the truth when the heart is not submissive to the plain teachings of the Word of God. The Scriptures must be studied according to the laws of language. These laws are scientific and God-given. No true scientist begins with an assumption or guess unless he intends to give that assumption a thorough test and has it proved or disproved by a complete induction of all the facts bearing on the case. Those who advocate this theory, which this brother claims to have received in answer to prayer, on his knees, have overlooked and neglected to consider a number of Scriptures and facts that utterly disprove it. They have accepted assumptions as interpretations of a few passages of Scripture and thus have been led astray. Their feelings have become their guide instead of God and His infallible Word. But to return to the narrative of the interview. It is very plain that after a brother protests his earnest search for the truth and his devoutness in prayer to obtain it, nothing further could be said about his conclusions. The plain inference was that the only one in the group of four, who had "earnestly sought by prayer on his knees for the truth", was the one who had spoken, and any one who differed from him must have neglected that infallible (?) source of accurate knowledge. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. One of the brethren was observed to curl his lip in scornful silence and the other turned pale, but all remained silent. Afterwards one of the number said, "I was surprised at Mr...'s answer," and the other said, "That was a foolish answer. Let four men get on their knees in prayer over a matter of dispute, concerning some phase of truth, and when they get up from their knees, they will hold exactly the same opinion still. Men must learn truth from the Word of God." This was certainly an answer wholly unworthy of one who knows the Word of God. Jehovah has said: "I have exalted My Word above all My Name." But this brother honored the impression obtained upon his knees above the plain teaching of the infallible Word of God. Pages 139-143.

The "More Noble" Way - Acts 17:11 Very different was Nathaniel West's attitude when confronted by this truth. Let Dr. Cameron tell the story in his own way.

About the year 1883 [this was just before I, thousands of miles away, and knowing nothing about such things, was led to look into them], the writer was pastor of Park Baptist Church, Brantford, Canada, and having attended the Clifton Springs, afterwards Niagara Conference, was appointed one of the committee of nine to take charge of subjects, speakers and other matters. At the 1884 conference it came to be the "fashion" of every speaker to "ring the changes" on the possibility of Christ coming at any moment--before the morning dawned, before the meeting closed, and even before the speaker had completed his address. Feeling that this was utterly unscriptural and dangerous, the writer opened his heart to the late Nathaniel West, the greatest and most exhaustive student of the Bible and of historic theology, among the teachers participating in the Conference. When pressed for the reason, it was frankly made known, and this led the Doctor to accompany the writer to his room in the "Annex". We talked and prayed until beyond two o'clock in the morning. After walking the floor backwards and forwards in silence, the great man stopped, pointed his finger at me, and said, "Cameron, I begin to think you are right. I will give these matters careful and exhaustive attention, and if I find that the Scriptures teach contrary to what is taught in this Conference, I will reverse myself and boldly defend the truth." I went to Denver before the next Conference as pastor of the First Baptist Church, while Dr. West remained, made known his change of views, and afterwards, in "The Reformed Episcopal" paper, and then in "Watchword and Truth", after it came into my hands, wrote those scathing articles that no attempt was ever made to answer. He redeemed his promise to "defend the truth" as he came to understand it. Pages 145,146.

In the light of these statements by Cameron (a scholar, a gentleman in every sense of the word, an earnest Christian and an able expositor of the Scriptures, who was practically ostracized by his brethren because of his Post-TribulationRapture views and died in comparative poverty, neglected by those who should have honored and loved him in the Lord and made it possible for him so to carry on his work as to provide for his old age), it is not to be wondered at that Nathaniel West, a still more capable man than Cameron and possessing a more intense nature, should have come to chafe under the contemptible treatment accorded him by many after his honest change of view--the result of a careful and exhaustive examination of the subject. Since I am not dependent upon money received for preaching, as West and Cameron were, the fact that I have been barred from many platforms and pulpits, even as these men were, because of this teaching, means little to me; hence there is not the same great provocation to bitterness on my part as they had. But it is not pleasant even to me, independent of these ecclesiastical bigots though I am, to be treated by them as often I am treated. To one who, as I do, asks merely the opportunity quietly to discuss this subject, the raised eyebrows, the supercilious smiles, the polite evasions, or the blunt refusals are very trying, and it takes grace to keep me, too, from wanting to "exegete" these people "with a cowhide". Like Cameron, I have found that when people will quietly and fairly discuss this subject, invariably they will abandon their old-new position in favor of this new-old one. But it is very hard for a preacher or writer who for many years has made positive assertions on public platforms or in books to reverse himself, hence many really are afraid to talk this matter over.

The Great Need--Independent Thinking Some one has said, "Every man should be equipped with reverse gears so that he can back up and start over again when he finds himself on the wrong road." But comparatively few are so equipped. I am confident that if a copy of the New Testament were placed in the hands of any intelligent, newly-converted man possessing no knowledge of the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ,--such, for instance, as I was forty-eight years ago,-and he were told to study that subject without the aid of any other books, he would reach the conclusion I reached, and which was reached by the early Christians and by all other Christians down to about the year 1830, namely, that the Coming of Christ and the Rapture of the Church will not occur until "immediately after the Tribulation". Frequently I say, if I can get people really to think on this subject I know where they will land. Here is a case in point: Gathering from the remarks of a minister to whom I had just been introduced that he was a Pre-Millennialist, I ventured a cautious remark about the Rapture, and instantly he showed that he was a Pre-TribulationRapturist. A brief discussion followed. He had never heard anything on PostTribulation-Rapturism and seemed greatly surprised that any one could hold such a belief. But finding it difficult to answer some of my questions, and receiving new answers to some of his own questions, his interest grew. Soon he began to advance arguments that seemed to him to support Post-Tribulation-Rapturism. We parted then, but it did not surprise me when a few days later he sought me out at the Bible Conference we were attending and renewed the conversation by producing new reasons, to him, why Post-Tribulation-Rapturism must be true. The Rev. J. W. Icenbarger, to whose church I came in 1899 to give two weeks of Bible talks, was admittedly by far the best Bible student then among the ministers and Christian workers of Dayton, many of whom attended his Friday evening studies of the Sunday School lessons. I introduced Post-Tribulation-Rapturism to him privately. Instantly he raised strenuous objections to it. Quietly I met his objections, taking several months to do so, as I had located here following my meetings in his church. I did not know what progress he was making, if any, toward Post-Tribulation-Rapturism, until one day he told me that he had abandoned PreTribulation-Rapturism, having become convinced by a careful and conscientious investigation of the position that it was untenable. Easier to Convince Lawyers than Preachers Once while being entertained in the home of Judge V. V. Barnes of Zion City, Illinois, I broached the subject to him. The judge was an earnest, highlyrespected and much-loved Christian, and a pronounced Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist, knowing little or nothing about Post-Tribulation-Rapturism. However, he was willing to discuss the subject, and I said, "Judge, I would rather talk this matter over with a legally-trained man like you than with a theologically-trained minister, because you lawyers have been taught to weigh evidence carefully and to render decisions justly, whereas the theologically-trained minister has been taught only how to present the doctrines of his denomination by literalizing all Scripture that seems to support it when so used and by symbolizing, or otherwise getting around, all that does not support it when accepted at its face value. Asked to define 'Theology', some one said, 'Theology is the art of telling what God meant to

say but hadn't sense enough to say.' You and I are not theologians but laymen, and as such, you a lawyer and I a businessman, we will talk this matter over." This we proceeded to do, and at the close the judge rendered a verdict for PostTribulation-Rapturism. She Thought Paul Had Made a Mistake Near the end of "The World War", I received a letter from a lady in the South who for many years had studied and to some extent had taught Bible doctrines, but who had whole-heartedly accepted Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism because it was being taught by so many "high-ups" in the theological world, therefore, presumably, must be true. In this, of course, she was like at least ninety-nine percent of PreTribulation-Rapturists. A portion of the letter follows, because it well illustrates the point I am making here, viz., that an unbiased examination of the alleged Scriptural proof of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism will inevitably result in the rejection of that doctrine.
Just before this war began I was reading 1 Cor. 15, and as I read that familiar passage, "Behold I show you a mystery", etc., suddenly the phrase, "at the last trump", stood out before me as though I had never seen it before. I thought, "What does this mean? When is that last trump blown?" And when I found it over in the tenth chapter of Revelation, I thought Paul had made a serious mistake; for all the Bible students whom I had heard had always confidently asserted that the Church is taken out at the fourth chapter of Revelation.[5] Then I went to hunting for myself, and the more I hunted the more convinced I became that the Church will have to pass through some, at least, of the Tribulation. This was not pleasing to the flesh, but I wanted the truth. Then came your series of articles which I devoured, and I could not help feeling that you were on the right track.

The "series of articles" referred to by the sister were those twelve under the general heading, "Will the Church Pass Through the Great Tribulation?" which appeared in The Standard Bearer from October, 1915, to July, 1916, inclusive, and which are in large part included in these volumes. While I am always glad to be able to arouse questions in the minds of those who believe in the un-Scriptural and dangerous doctrine of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, yet it is far more gratifying to me to find that one, who has long believed it, has come to question it because of their own searching of the Scriptures. I wrote the sister that if she would look again at Rev. 10:7 she would find that the "seventh" or "last" trumpet is not sounded there but in Rev. 11:15, and that the record of its sounding is preceded and followed by words which indicate that that sounding is not until the end of the Tribulation; for when the seventh trumpet sounds, Jesus not only raises and rewards His saints, but also takes over the kingdoms of the world and makes of them His own Kingdom, thus terminating Satan's rule on earth.

5 I shall deal with this subject at greater length in a later volume, under the headings, "Is the Rapture of the Church Shown in the Fourth Chapter of the Revelation?" and "At the Last Trump".

WHY THREE PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISTS CHANGED THEIR MINDS

I could relate many such experiences but instead will let three ex-PreTribulation-Rapturists tell how they came to reverse themselves on this subject. After describing Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism in his book, "Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?", Edmund Shackleton says,
There is something about this theory, apart from its promise of deliverance from the persecution under Antichrist, which renders it very fascinating. My own mind was under its spell for about five years. It was not without a struggle that I was induced to admit the possibility of it being false and to set myself to examine its alleged Scriptural foundations. Having first prayed to God to take away my strong bias for the doctrine if it were untrue, I tested, to the best of my ability, by Scripture, all the arguments which I have heard advanced in its support. I found to my surprise that the arguments for it were of the most unsatisfactory character; in fact, that almost any doctrine, no matter how erroneous, might be advocated on the same kind of hypothetical grounds. I have felt for some time a growing burden of regret that this ingenious figment of the human fancy should have been foisted upon God's people as if a most valuable truth. The readiness with which this theory is being received is a proof of how many are studying the Bible by the light of man's teaching instead of "taking heed what they hear" and bringing everything to the touchstone of Scripture. Pages 5,6.

Then Mr. Shackleton devotes about eighty pages to his reasons for having renounced Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism in favor of Post-Tribulation-Rapturism. In the "Introduction" to his book, "The Church, the Chart and the Coming", Rev. John A. Anderson, a medical missionary to China, says,
The truths which the following pages are written to elucidate are surpassingly solemn, yet transcendantly glorious. The author was at Chefoo (China) recuperating from sickness consequent on the strenuous work of the medical missionary. He had agreed to conduct a series of Bible addresses, and the subject chosen was the Coming of the Lord. For many years he had taught that Christ would return secretly to the air for His Church, that on earth the Great Tribulation will follow the Rapture of the Church, that during the Tribulation Jews will be God's witness to the world, and that several years after the secret coming for the Church, our Lord with His Church will come in manifested power and glory, to reign. Assured in his own mind, that these were the teachings of Scripture, he proceeded to prepare his addresses by seeking for definite Bible declarations on the subject. There was abundant and convincing proof that Christ will come personally; but the Bible was found to be silent regarding a secret coming, and silent as to any world missionary movement by the Jews until after Christ shall come in glory, and the veil of blindness be taken from Israel and the nations. Finally, to his consternation, he found there was no word about the Church being caught up before the Great Tribulation. Three texts upon which he had been relying to prove that the Church will not go through the Tribulation, showed on examination that they did not refer to the Tribulation. Feeling sick at heart at his inability to prove from the Bible what he believed to be the truth, he approached three senior missionaries, who like himself had taught these doctrines for about a quarter of a century (and who probably still teach them). He explained his difficulty, and they kindly promised to help him. A few days later, each of the three regretfully admitted failure to find a single Scripture proof. In desperation he went to a resident missionary who was said to specialize in the study

of prophecy. This friend at once said there is no proof in the Bible of a secret coming, nor of the Church being taken away before the Great Tribulation, nor that the Church would escape the Great Tribulation: this seemed confusing; but he promised to send a leaflet containing some of the thoughts of the late George Muller of Bristol. The leaflet arrived, but it made confusion worse confounded, for it said the Church must go through the Tribulation, since 2 Thes. 2 made it clear that Antichrist must be manifested before the Coming of Christ, and our gathering to Him in the air. During the following six months all the author's spare time was devoted to studying the Bible on this subject. During these months he relied as on a sheet anchor, upon the oft-repeated saying, that because the apostles and the early Church expected that Christ would come in their day, therefore, in our day, we may expect Him to come at any moment. At length by diligently searching the Scriptures, with an earnest desire to learn what God has revealed, he found that his supposed sheet anchor was a chimera, and that the apostles and the early Church did not expect Christ to come in their day, but contrariwise, Churches were warned that after the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, they would pass through perilous times "in the last days" of this age.

The third instance of a prominent Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist reversing himself, one to which I desire to call special attention, and, naturally, one that affords me very great pleasure, is that of Rev. Oswald J. Smith, pastor of "The People's Church", Toronto, Ontario, Canada; a man of international reputation as a pastor, evangelist and author, having traveled extensively in Canada, the United States and Europe in evangelistic and other religious work, and having written a number of books and pamphlets on various subjects including prophecy--some of which have run into several editions--besides contributing many articles to various leading religious publications. So important do I consider Mr. Smith's testimony in this connection, that I shall quote from it quite extensively. This testimony appears in his latest book, "God's Future Program: Will the Church Escape the Tribulation?", a copy of which I received in March, 1932. As is his custom, Mr. Smith heads the chapters in this book with a number of questions, which questions he then proceeds to answer. Here are first the questions he asks at the beginning of the chapter in which he tells how he became a Post-Tribulation-Rapturist.
Why did Jesus conceal the Secret Rapture in Matthew 24?--How are we to explain the silence of the Church for centuries concerning it?--What about the passages that have been used to support it?--Have we been lulling the Church into a false security?--Are there any outstanding Christian leaders who believe that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation?

Next he proceeds to answer these questions.

In my third address, published in my first book on Prophecy, "Is the Antichrist at Hand?" it will be remembered that I asked the question, "Will the Church pass through the Tribulation or be raptured out of it?", and that in answering the question I made this statement: "I have always held the view that the Rapture precedes the Revelation by some seven years, and that the Church, therefore, will not go through the Tribulation, but I do not want to be dogmatic about it, and if God should reveal the contrary to me I will gladly accept and proclaim it." Hence, you see, I did not approach the subject with my mind closed to new light and my heart already prejudiced. I was open to whatever God might reveal.

Just here I break in to say that a copy of the above-mentioned book, "Is the Antichrist At Hand?", came into my possession. When I read the statement referred to in the foregoing, I said, "Here is a man who may be willing to investigate this important subject." And I knew if he did so there could be but one result, for during the forty-five years, or more, in which I have been presenting PostTribulation-Rapturism, I have never known a man who, laying aside bias and prejudice and hair-splitting and facing the issue honestly and squarely, did not abandon Pre-Tribulation Rapturism. Observe the striking resemblance of the latter part of Mr. Smith's statement to what, under somewhat similar circumstances, Nathaniel West, one of America's greatest Bible scholars, said to Robert Cameron many years before, as related in the preceding chapter. "If God should reveal the contrary to me, I will gladly accept and proclaim it," said Oswald J. Smith. "I will give these matters exhaustive and careful attention, and if I find the Scriptures teach contrary to what is taught in this Conference, I will reverse myself and boldly defend the truth", said Nathaniel West. And Oswald Smith is keeping his promise, as West kept his. I knew of few men whom I would rather see come over to our side than Oswald J. Smith, for already I had heard much about him and his splendid work. So I wrote him, suggesting that he begin at once seriously to investigate this subject, telling him that I was convinced that if any intelligent man will give it fair treatment, that is to say, if he will approach it without bias and will examine it without "handling the Word of God deceitfully", there can be but one result. This letter I followed up with copies of my paper, "The Standard Bearer", in which I was then running some of these articles for the second time. And because Mr. Smith "did not approach the subject with his mind closed to new light and his heart already prejudiced", and because he was too honest to avail himself of "The Jewish Waste-paper Basket" into which to throw such Scriptures as Matthew 24, he discovered not "new light" but the old truth of Post-TribulationRapturism, which has almost been done to death by the "new" error of PreTribulation-Rapturism. Farther on the reader will see what I mean by calling this doctrine a "new" error, for there Mr. Smith tells of the effect upon his mind when he read in Mr. Shackleton's book how very "modern" Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism is. But to continue, quoting Mr. Smith:
And now, after years of study and prayer, I am absolutely convinced that there will be no Rapture before the Tribulation, but that the Church will undoubtedly be called upon to face the Antichrist, and that Christ will come at the close and not at the beginning of that awful period. I believed the other theory simply because I was taught it, but when I began to search the Scriptures for myself, whether these things were so, I discovered that there is not a single verse in the Bible that upholds the pre-tribulation theory, but that the uniform teaching of the Word of God is for a post-tribulation Rapture. Pre-millennial, always, everywhere pre-millennial, but post-tribulation.

Observe this significant statement: "I believed the other theory [PreTribulation-Rapturism] simply because I was taught it", etc. I say without fear of successful contradiction what I iterate and reiterate throughout these volumes, the idea always the same, the language expressing the idea alone changing, that no PreTribulation-Rapturist believes in that doctrine for any other reason. That is to say, every Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist, without a solitary exception, learned that doctrine precisely in the same way that a parrot learns to say "Polly wants a cracker", for it is impossible to learn it in any other way. And any one who will advance beyond the "parrot" stage will abandon that doctrine, even as these three men, and many like them, have done.

Again I stress the fact, for which I am profoundly grateful to God, that I never held the "new" error, consequently I never had to abandon it. As stated in the "Foreword" of this volume, with no teacher save the Holy Spirit and no textbook but the Bible, I learned Post-Tribulation-Rapturism in "The School of Hard Knocks". But all the more honor to those who, having had the misfortune to learn Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, and who, having achieved a measure--large or small--of popularity by preaching it, have had the honesty and courage to reverse themselves. I take off my hat to them, and almost envy them the privilege that is theirs. But again from Mr. Smith: My First Awakening
My first awakening to this important truth came one day when I was spending a few days in a cottage at Stoney Lake, Ontario. A man simply made the suggestion to me. I opposed it at once. My whole soul revolted. "Why," I exclaimed, "however could that be? What about the Scriptures? The teaching of a pre-tribulation Rapture is clear and indisputable." But he quietly affirmed that I was wrong and emphasized the truth concerning the Last Trump. Of course, I was not convinced. I almost ridiculed the very idea of such a possibility. And there the matter rested. Thus the weeks passed by until, one day, I began preaching on Prophecy. I had taken my people through Daniel without difficulty. Then came Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24 and 25. But, lo and behold, no sooner had I started on Matthew 24 than I got into trouble. I had announced that I would deal with Matthew 24 at the next service. Hundreds had gathered. I was in a maze, for I was not prepared to make public my findings. Perhaps, after all, I was wrong, I conceded. So I took a verse here and there through the chapter and thus satisfied the people for that hour at least. But now the next meeting was coming. What was I to say? I need not point out that there is no pre-tribulation Rapture in Matthew 24. The Second Coming is unmistakably placed "immediately after the Tribulation" (verse 29), and I was forced to the conclusion that if there was to be a previous Rapture the Lord Jesus Christ would certainly have given some hint of it at least. He was dealing with the End-Time of the Age. It is unthinkable that He would have spoken so minutely of the Tribulation without stating that the Church would escape. Instead, He purposely led His hearers to the belief that His followers would be in it. Hence, I was staggered, nor could I honestly defend my previous position. And, so, when I again faced the people, I said sufficient to let them know that I questioned my former stand and saw evidence of a post-tribulation Rapture. For, as I read Matthew 24 and 25, I saw that many things, as prophesied by Jesus Christ, simply had to take place, before He could come, namely, "all these things" (verse 33), especially the prediction regarding the preaching of the Gospel. See Mark 13:10, and note the significance of the word "first". Thus, since God's future program could not be set aside, there could be no any-moment expectation of Christ's Return. We are to watch, watch as prophecy after prophecy is fulfilled, ever looking forward to His Appearing; and in the End-time, to watch as never before, and to always be ready, for none have ever known how quickly the events predicted might come to pass and Christ return.

My "Any-Moment" Theory
Then followed the next step. There came into my hands a copy of a book by Henry W. Frost, then the Home Director of the China Inland Mission. It was entitled "Matthew 24 and The Revelation", a volume of over 300 pages. I fairly devoured it. Portions of it I read twice. It was most conclusive in its arguments for a post-tribulation Rapture. About the same time I got hold of a book by James H. McConkey, called, "The Book of Revelation", and another by Edmund Shackleton, an Anglican, entitled "Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?" Before I had read them through I was firmly convinced that there would be no Rapture before the Tribulation, and that I

had done wrong in promising the Church an escape instead of preparing her for the terrible ordeal that most surely awaited. My "any-moment" theory could not be sustained. In fact the very first statement in the latter book amazed me beyond measure and I was fairly staggered as I grasped its significance. Let me quote it verbatim: "All who held the pre-millennial Coming of Christ were, till about sixty years ago, of one mind on the subject.6 About that time a new view was promulgated that the Coming of Christ was not one event, but that it was divided into stages; in fact, that Christ comes twice from heaven to earth, but the first time only as far as the air. This first descent, it is said, will be for the purpose of removing the Church from the world, and will occur before the Great Tribulation under Antichrist. This they call 'The coming for His saints'; or 'Secret Rapture'. The second part of the Coming is said to take place when Christ appears in glory and destroys the Antichrist. This they call 'The coming with His saints'. "Apart from the test of the Word, which is the only final one, there are certain reasons why this doctrine should be viewed with suspicion, and only received after being submitted to the most careful scrutiny. It appears to be little more than sixty years old; and it seems highly improbable that, if scriptural, it could have escaped the scrutiny of the many devoted Bible students whose writings have been preserved to us from the past. More especially in the writings of the early Christian fathers would we expect to find some notice of this doctrine, if it had been taught by the Apostles; but those who have their works declare that they betray no knowledge of a theory that the Church would escape the Tribulation under Antichrist, or that there would be any 'coming' except that spoken of in Matthew 24, as occurring in manifest glory 'after the Tribulation'. This is all the more significant, because these writers bestowed much attention upon the subject of the Antichrist and the great Tribulation. Augustine, referring to Daniel 7, wrote: 'But he who reads this passage even half asleep cannot fail to see that the kingdom of antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church.'" Then when I remembered that the death of Peter, his prediction of corruption and apostasy after his decease, the death of Paul, and many other events had to occur before the Rapture, my "any-moment" theory took wings and flew. See 2 Peter 1:14,15. Last of all, I ran across the articles of John J. Scruby of Dayton, Ohio, in "The Standard Bearer", now published, I believe, in book form, the most convincing, the most unanswerable of all. They deal with every point minutely and prove conclusively that the Tribulation precedes the Rapture.

My advice to every Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist, especially if he be a teacher of that doctrine, who may have read these testimonies is, "Go thou, and do likewise." Investigate honestly and examine carefully, and the result will never be in doubt. I defy anyone to look into this subject as frankly and fairly as these men did and not reach the same conclusion.

6 Mr. Shackleton's small book was written about forty years ago, hence he says "sixty years", while I say "a hundred years".

ORIGIN OF PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM
A brief account of the origin of the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church should prove enlightening to all, and especially so to the PreTribulation-Rapturists themselves. In the early part of the nineteenth century--a little more than a hundred years ago--the "Irvingite" movement came into existence. Among other things which distinguished the "Irvingites" (so named after their leader), was their alleged speaking in tongues and receiving inspired messages from the Holy Spirit through their supposed "prophets" and "prophetesses". The work went well for a while, but gradually errors and extravagances crept in, the work fell into disrepute, and at last it died an apparently well-deserved death, if one may judge from certain statements that have come down from those days (many of them "confessions" by disillusioned adherents of the movement who declared that they had come to realize that frequently, at least, while "speaking in tongues" or allegedly "giving messages in the Spirit", they were really under demon control). In one of the Irvingite meetings a woman, professedly under the influence of the Spirit of God, gave a message to the effect that the Church would not go through the Great Tribulation, as had always been supposed, but would be Raptured before it. Since at that time the Irvingites believed all such messages were divinely inspired, of course they had to believe this one, although it contradicted what they had learned from the Scriptures and what had always theretofore been taught as "the faith once delivered to the saints". Later, as stated, many of them came to question the origin of these messages, then to attribute them to demons-because of accompanying "manifestations"--and so to reject them. Then an era of sanity followed and "Irvingism" died, the good in the movement perishing with the bad. The "leaven" of evil had so permeated the "meal" of good as apparently to make it impossible to separate them, so perhaps it was better that both should die. It is the writer's hope that in the present-day "Pentecostal" or "Tongues" movement, all that was "good" in "Irvingism" has been revived; and he thinks it has. But from the inception of the so-called "Latter Rain" movement, he has detected in it more than a trace of the Irvingite "leaven" and fears that it will yet go the way of its predecessor, but devoutly hopes that enough sane, conservative yet progressive leaders will be developed in it to ensure the separation of "the precious from the vile" (Jer. 15:19) and so ensure perpetuation of the good. Why Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Became Popular But this particular message--to the effect that the Church would be Raptured before the Tribulation--had fallen into soil favorable to its rapid and stupendous growth. That soil was the "weak" flesh of man. "The spirit indeed is willing", said Jesus, when warning His disciples to "watch and pray", "but the flesh is weak." Matt. 26:41. No matter how "willing" the "spirit" of the Christians of the first eighteen centuries may have been to face the horrors of the Great Tribulation for their Lord's glory and their own resultant blessing, naturally the "weak" "flesh" shrank from the ordeal. Had they known of any Biblical teaching that held out the hope of escape by removal from these (as they believed) ever-threatening horrors, certainly they would have caught at this hope and emphasized this teaching. But in none of the writings of any Christians during those eighteen

centuries do we find so much as a hint of such a hope or such a doctrine. It remained for a nineteenth-century "Irvingite" woman to introduce the flesh-pleasing doctrine, and that at a time when Irvingism admittedly had begun to corrupt. And the "weak" "flesh" causes the vast majority of Pre-Millennialists to hold that doctrine today, although they reject almost all else that the Irvingites taught. Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Adopted and Spread by "The Plymouth Brethren" This doctrine of the Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation might also have perished, as it deserved to do, with the other errors of Irvingism but for an incident which gave it new impetus. A few earnest men in Dublin, Ireland, gave themselves to independent study of the Scriptures. While doing so they came to see the prominence which the Scriptures give to the second coming of Christ, and at once began to preach His coming as imminent, seeing that it was then eighteen hundred years since the formation of the Church to which this doctrine had been given as an inspiring force. Titus 2:11-13. But when emphasizing the imminence of the coming of Christ, they were confronted with a difficulty--the words of Christ in Matt. 24:29,30: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days...shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." For three years this passage tended to dampen their ardor when declaring the imminence of the Coming, for they realized that not only was the Tribulation not then in sight, but also that its immediately antecedent events were conspicuous by their absence. Finally there came to them from England a minister named Tweedy who taught that Jesus' discourse in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew's Gospel was intended for the Jews alone, not for the Church, and gave them the doctrine of PreTribulation-Rapturism as we know it today (and as the Satan-deluded woman had given it in an alleged Spirit-inspired message a few years before). This seemed to them to be a happy solution of their problem. Immediately they tossed that chapter into what has aptly been named "The Jewish Wastepaper Basket", where so much other scripture has been and is being tossed by Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists. They proceeded with their "Imminent Coming" teaching, led by that eminent man, J. N. Darby (whose piety and scholarship gave prestige to the doctrine and so caused it to forge to the front in spite of the opposition which it met from the first from prominent believers in the Pre-Millennial Coming of Christ, such men as S. P. Tregelles, Charles H. Spurgeon, George Muller of Bristol, and others). Why George Muller Abandoned Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism In "Scriptural Truth About the Lord's Return", Robert Cameron tells how George Muller came to reverse himself in this matter.
When Mr. Muller was asked how it happened that he came to abandon the "at any moment" expectation of the Lord's Coming, and also the belief that the Church would escape

the Great Tribulation, he made a very prompt answer and said, "My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible and I soon found that what I was taught to believe did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company from John Darby, or from my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby." This was the explanation given to me in his room in the Kirby House, Brantford, Canada. Never can I forget the wonderful Conference in the Y.M.C.A. of Toronto, when over two hundred ministers sat on the platform every day while, in tenderness, he spoke of the unsearchable riches of Christ, and, in fiery indignation, of the evils of the present day, and also of the failure of the ministers to make known the coming of the Lord, and their failure also to oppose the downgrade on which modern Christians had entered. He appealed to the ministers who had been preaching "progress", and told them that just before us were horrible wars, famines and pestilences--the coming of the Antichrist and the day of unequalled tribulation before the coming of our adorable Lord, who alone could bring the day of peace. "That," said he, "is what you are coming to, and not the Millennium of which you dream. Christ must come first to reward the saints and to crush His foes, but before He comes will occur the horrors of the Tribulation." Pages 146-148.7

Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism a New Thing Robert Cameron further remarks:

"If this novel view of Pre-Tribulation Rapture is anywhere taught in the Scripture, how did it escape the scrutiny of so many earnest students for eighteen centuries? The doctrine of the Lord's return, and all kindred truths, occupied the attention of the Christian scholars very much during the first four centuries, but not one of them has betrayed any knowledge of the Church escaping the Tribulation. All of them, like Augustine, take the opposite view. See DeCivitate Deo. Commenting on Daniel 7:25 he says: 'He who reads this passage, even half-asleep, cannot fail to see that the Kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church.'" Page 20.

S. P. Tregelles, who has been termed "The greatest Biblical scholar of the nineteenth century in the British Empire", says in his book, "The Hope of Christ's Second Advent",
I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there would be a secret rapture of the Church at a secret coming, until this was given forth as an utterance 7 Several years after the above was written the following came into my hands: "Are we to expect our Lord's return at any moment, or that certain events must be fulfilled before He comes again." This was one of nine questions answered by the late Mr. George Muller at a public meeting held on December 12, 1879, at Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, Canada. His answer was: "I know that on this subject there is great diversity of judgment, and I do not wish to force on other persons the light I have myself. The subject, however, is not new to me; for having been a careful, diligent student of the Bible for nearly fifty years, my mind has long been settled on this point, and I have not the shadow of a doubt about it. The Scripture declares plainly that the Lord Jesus will not come until the Apostacy shall have taken place, and the man of sin, the "son of perdition" (or personal Antichrist) shall have been revealed, as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2. Many other portions also of the Word of God distinctly teach that certain events are to be fulfilled before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. This does not, however, alter the fact, that the Coming of Christ, and not death, is the great Hope of the Church, and, if in a right state of heart, we (as the Thessalonians believers did) shall "serve the living and true God, and wait for His Son from heaven." From "Missionary Tour and Labours" by Mrs. Muller.

in Mr. Irving's church from what was there received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether any one ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came, not from Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God; whilst not owning the true doctrine of our Lord's incarnation in the same flesh and blood as His brethren but without taint of sin.

It is doubtful if one in a million of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists know these facts, so they need to be strongly emphasized and widely circulated. The First Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists Failed To Heed Paul's Warning Observe the remarkable resemblance of the possible cause of the error into which the Thessalonians had fallen, namely, that "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto Him" would precede the Parousia of the Antichrist, and the little-known cause of the present-day delusion of the PreTribulation-Rapturists, who also believe that "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto Him" will precede the Parousia of the Antichrist. Paul warned the Thessalonians, "Be not...troubled either by Spirit [by alleged Spirit-revelations], or by [alleged] word, or by [alleged] epistle, as from us, as that the Day of the Lord is now present; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed." 2 Thes. 2:2,3. What method Satan had adopted to deceive the Thessalonians we are not told, but Paul knew the "devices" of Satan, 2 Cor. 2:11, and he knew also that he who delights to assume the role of "an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14) in order to deceive the saints, when as "a roaring lion" (1 Peter 5:8) he cannot terrify them, might try to accomplish such deception by means of an alleged "Spirit-revelation", so he included this among the things to be guarded against in this connection. They were to accept no such alleged "Spirit-revelation", but his inspired words only. This warning should have put John Darby and his associates on their guard against the alleged "Spirit-revelation" through which Satan, by means of the Irvingite woman, introduced the doctrine of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. But unfortunately it did not do so, and for the simple reason that they needed this flesh-pleasing (therefore Satan-inspired) doctrine to enable them to solve the problem that had arisen in connection with their unscriptural preaching of the imminency of the Second Coming of Christ. They grasped this attractive theory as a drowning man is said to grasp a straw, and, changing the figure, through their efforts and the efforts of their successors the noxious weed of Pre-TribulationRapturism has so covered the entire Christian field as to have almost completely destroyed the "good seed" of Post-Tribulation-Rapturism which was sown by the Lord and by the apostles. "The Inexorable Logic of Facts" Will Yet Destroy Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism But, thank God! a little of this seed and a few of those who care for it remain, and assisted by "the inexorable logic of facts", this "good seed" will yet prevail. By which I mean that, as "The Signs of the Times" develop and the Lord's

Coming is still delayed, many of the more reasonable Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists will re-examine their doctrine in the light of these things (some of them assisted, I hope, by what I am now writing), and so will discover their error. We have an illustration of this sort of thing during the so-called "World War" of 1914-1918, when many who theretofore had sincerely believed in PostMillennialism--and so had been among the strongest of the "Peace Advocates" who were saying so much about "Peace and safety through arbitration at the Peace Tribunal"--realizing the futility of all such plans to secure world peace during the absence of "The Prince of Peace", came over to the old truth of PreMillennialism, with the result that the doctrine of the Second Personal PreMillennial Coming of Christ (for which a despised few had fought so faithfully for generations) received such careful attention and consequently gained such vast popularity as both to amaze and delight those of us who had stood for it when it was decidedly unpopular. "The inexorable logic of facts", as "The Signs of the Times" facts develop, will again cause "history to repeat itself" by destroying the new theory of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, and establishing the old truth of PostTribulation-Rapturism. A Warning to the "Pentecostal" People I have said that I have detected in the modern "Pentecostal" or "Tongues" movement, which in so many respects resembles the "Irvingite" movement, "more than a trace of the 'Irvingite' leaven". This is especially true in the matter of alleged "Spirit revelations", usually uttered in "Tongues" by one and then interpreted by another, which alleged "revelations" are often placed on a par with and sometimes are regarded as superior to Biblical statements. That I am not stating this too strongly is evident from the following from a recent pamphlet, "A Warning to the Pentecostal People", by Frank Bartleman, himself a well-known "Tongues" man, and, so far as I know, a Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist.
One hesitates these days in writing a message of this nature to the baptized saints because of the general spirit of unwillingness to be taught, or to receive admonition. But we must obey God. The responsibility for the results in further action must remain with the ones admonished. The "watchman" gives the warning, however, he may be criticized, misunderstood, or condemned for it. "Whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." The majority usually reject it. But honest souls are warned. We are living in days of lawlessness and disorder; of freaks and fads; of foolishness, fancy and fanaticism; of cliques and clans and cults and vain imaginations. Every man does pretty much "that which seems right in his own eyes", ends being often made to justify dishonest means. It seems necessary for some kind of a sane, honest, Scriptural standard to be raised, and for the trumpet to give a "certain" sound (1 Cor. 14:8), in these matters.... Tongues and interpretation were never given to the Church as an "oracle" for the saints, to get the mind of God. There is no evidence in the Scripture to this end. That is not their avowed purpose. The Word of God, the inspired canon of Scripture, is the mind of God for us, the "more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed". We have a more complete canon of Scripture than they had in the beginning of the Church age. We have the whole New Testament. Here many are getting into trouble. They are magnifying the "tongues" above the written Word, as a superior channel of utterance to the Word. This opens the way for modern inspiration, which they would have us accept as infallible. But one who knows the Word of God has no need or desire for further, advanced revelation. The Word of God

is fathomless and exhaustless in its depth and meaning, beside which in comparison most modern-day inspiration, through would-be prophets, looks like a two cent piece with a big hole in it. Many are playing with "tongues" like children with sharp knives. They are willing to run anywhere to get their "tongues" interpreted. This is dangerous business. We cannot accept purported interpretation as infallible. It is not proven. The Scriptures do not teach that we are hearing more "direct from heaven", or that we are to receive advanced revelation with time, through the medium of tongues and interpretation. This is unscriptural, a dangerous delusion. We dare not even accept modern-day purported prophetic utterance in this light. Great havoc has already been wrought to the work of God and souls through this error.

A somewhat similar warning was later issued by the editor of one of the most prominent and widely-circulated "Pentecostal" papers. It was under just such circumstances as these that Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism was begotten, which fact should make its advocates think very seriously before declaring it to be of Divine origin. It is not to be wondered at that Tregelles, already quoted in this chapter, who was as well acquainted with "Irvingism" as I am with "Pentecostalism", decided that its offspring--Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism--was of Satanic origin.

IMPORTANT
After the second edition of this volume had been issued, further information regarding the Origin of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism came to hand. This will be presented in Volume 2 under the heading, "More About the Origin of Pre-TribulationRapturism".

THE RESULT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM

Higher Criticism and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Under the specious claim of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", 2 Tim. 2:15, the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists imitate the Higher Critics, of whose methods they profess to disapprove; for as the Higher Critics cut up the Scriptures and allot them to various writers and different times with the view to showing that they are not to be depended upon to prove certain important doctrines, so the PreTribulation-Rapturists cut up the Scriptures relating to the Lord's Second, Personal, Pre-Millennial Coming, and throw into "The Jewish Wastepaper Basket" all that will not fit their doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church. It is a very convenient way of meeting Biblical difficulties, a system as ingenious as it is dishonest, or would be dishonest, if these brethren were not deceived by the enemy taking advantage of the weakness of the flesh to foist upon them this fleshpleasing doctrine. In this respect they, like the Higher Critics, are lineal descendants of Jehudi, who cut up God's Word and threw it into the fire because it contained statements that were not agreeable to him.1 Making "A Crazy Quilt" of Matthew 24 Perhaps the most striking example of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists' method of "dividing (I cannot, in this connection, say "rightly dividing") the Word of Truth" is found in the handling of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Many, not all of them, admit that the first thirteen verses of this chapter are meant for Christians, being intended as a warning to them lest at any time they become discouraged by what they should see occurring and be called upon to endure. Among the statements made by the Master to these disciples was that many of His followers would be "hated" for His "name's sake"--a statement that could not be true of any but Christians who bear His name--and this Scripture has been fulfilled in millions of cases. However, some of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists throw even these thirteen verses into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, denying that they refer to the Church in spite of the fact that the history of the Church has been a fulfillment of all these prophecies right down to the present day; for she has witnessed the destruction of the Temple, has heard of "wars and rumors of wars", has been pestered with false Christs and false prophets, has seen "nation rise against nation", has passed through "famines and pestilences and earthquakes", has been hated and afflicted, and has seen multiplied millions of her members killed. While perhaps the great majority of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists accept the fourteenth verse as being intended for Christians of this age, believing that in the modern revival of missionary activities that prophecy is being fulfilled, yet others among them also toss this Scripture into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, declaring that it will be fulfilled by the Jewish converts to Christianity after the Church has been removed from the earth. The time in which this verse will be fulfilled is, they say, "The Jewish Age", or the time allegedly intervening between the co-called coming of Christ for His saints and His coming with His saints, that is, during the Tribulation period.2 Of this alleged "Jewish Age", so necessary to
1 See also "A Quartet of False Doctrines". 2 Dr. C. I. Scofield is an outstanding advocate of this theory. In a later volume, under

their doctrine, we have not a hint in the Scriptures. But it serves their purpose, hence is very dear to them. So what does it matter if it cannot be found in the Scriptures, or even if it be found squarely to contradict many passages of Scripture? By common consent, the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists make verses fifteen to twenty-two applicable to the Jews, and necessarily so, for if their Rapture-beforethe-Tribulation doctrine is true, these verses cannot apply to the Church. Verses twenty-three to twenty-eight are for Christians, most of them say, warning them that they would be in danger of false Christs.3 Of course they all believe that verses twenty-nine to thirty-one are Jewish; for the Church, they allege, will be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air" before the Tribulation and will return with Him to be privileged front-seat observers of the events mentioned in the latter parts of this section. Most Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists make verses thirty-two to thirty-five refer to Christians. They declare "the fig tree" is the Jewish nation, and believe that the present experiences of the Jews are the budding of the tender branches of that tree, which will soon eventuate in its full leafing and fruiting; and in spite of their teaching that we are not to look for "signs" but for Christ's coming, they are never weary of pointing to this "fig tree sign" as an evidence to the Church of the near approach of the end of this age, therefore of the coming of the Lord. Likewise, as a whole, they make verses thirty-six to forty-four Christian, since it contains a warning to the Church to "watch". From verse forty-five to the end of the chapter is also Christian, this majority says. Thus we have "a crazy quilt" chapter, part Jewish, part Christian, and part Jewish-Christian, which reminds one of the similar "crazy quilt" arrangement by the Modernists of certain books of the Old Testament. The only thing certain in this connection is the hopeless confusion that exists among the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists as to how "rightly" to "divide" the Scriptures which contradict their doctrine. The foregoing is a fair description of the method of dividing the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, adopted by the
the heading, "Who Will Preach the Gospel During the Great Tribulation?", I shall reply to his note on Matthew 24:14. 3 Concerning the Jewish Wastepaper Basket theory in general and this "false Christs" prophecy in particular, S. P. Tregelles says in his book "The Hope of Christ's Second Coming": If the application of the Jewish theory of interpretation of definite New Testament prophecies be carefully examined, it will be found to refute itself; for it will give to Jews as Jews what most certainly belongs to the Church of Christ, and it will assume that Jews in their unbelief are found using the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher. Thus, when Matt. 24 has been used as teaching how we are to expect the Lord, it has been repeatedly said that it is entirely "Jewish." Let this be granted. But what then? Who are to use it, or to take heed to its warnings? No one can acknowledge Jesus there as a teacher without owning Him as the Christ: "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many." (Verse 5.) The persons who will use the warnings, and who will expect the manifest appearing of Christ, as here spoken of, must be believers in His divine mission, and thus their profession must simply be that of believers in His name; in other words, they must be a part of the Church of the first-born, to which all belong who now accept the Lord Jesus as He is set forth by God. Pages 38,39.

majority of them; but some make less, others more of it Jewish, while some make a clean sweep of the whole of Matthew's Gospel and cast it all into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket. Dr. Bullinger Goes For "The Whole Hog" Dr. Bullinger not only denied that the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew was meant for the Church, but he also taught that inasmuch as the teachings of Christ about Baptism and the Lord's Supper were given to Jews (Christ's Jewish disciples, the same men to whom He delivered His twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew address), therefore Baptism and the Lord's Supper do not belong to this Church period but are intended for those Jews who will be saved through faith in Christ after the Church is taken away. Ridiculous as this teaching is (and I think many Pre-TribulationRapturists will agree with this characterization of such a doctrine), it is only the logical conclusion of the alleged "rightly dividing" adopted by all of the PreTribulation-Rapturists. Dr. Bullinger was a very logical man. Not all PreTribulation-Rapturists are as seriously afflicted with logic as Dr. Bullinger was. His logic made him all the more dangerous as a teacher, because his premise being wrong his logic necessarily led him to a wrong conclusion. But he was honest enough to follow the argument to the end. But Bullinger went farther even than this, for he declared that "the seven churches" of the first three chapters of The Revelation will not come into existence until after the Rapture of the Church; in other words, not until after the Tribulation begins, which would make them seven Tribulation period churches composed of converted Jews. What So-called "Kingdom Truth" Leads To So let all Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists take heed lest in praying the Lord's Prayer, in attempting to practice the Golden Rule and the other instructions contained in the Sermon on the Mount, in applying to themselves the lessons found in the parables given in Matthew's Gospel, and in submitting to Baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper, they are are doing things the Lord never intended them to do, since He gave these to Jews only. Just here in this connection I recall an incident that occurred several years ago. Writing a friend, a believer in the Second Coming of Christ, who had expressed herself with great bitterness about an alleged wrong done her, I called attention to the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, "love your enemies", etc. She replied that the Sermon on the Mount is "kingdom truth", therefore not intended for the Church during this age but for the Millennium, consequently the text quoted did not apply to her case. This amused and amazed me at the time as purporting to be serious Biblical exegesis, for I had never before heard of this kind of "rightly dividing" the Scriptures. Since then I have heard very much of it. My friend's case may have been an extreme one, but it serves to show one of the dangers wrapped up in the theory we are considering. In addition to refraining from doing the things already mentioned, let no would-be-consistent Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist quote the "Go ye" of Matthew 28:19 as a command for the pushing of missionary work in the "regions beyond" during the Christian age, since, according to that most consistent Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist Dr. Bullinger, it is applicable only to the "Jewish converts" during the so-called "Jewish Age", which is only another name for the Great Tribulation.

Also, of course, the "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age", does not belong to Christians if the really logical Pre-TribulationRapturists, headed by Dr. Bullinger, are correct in their interpretation of such Scriptures. And they must never quote as applicable to themselves, "Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world" (Rev. 3:10), because, Mr. Bullinger being authority for this, that promise was given for the Tribulation "Jewish-Christian" saints. Of course, in that case this promise will be fulfilled even as I have said it will be fulfilled, not by the removal of these saints from the Tribulation but by their preservation in it. Thus Bullinger admits one of the strongest points I shall make later in these articles.4 Christ's Coming Not Hastened by the "At-any-moment" Teaching J. N. Darby and his associates profited nothing by dropping Matt. 24:29,30 into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, for the removal of this difficulty from the way of their preaching the imminence of Christ's second coming did not bring Christ back. Nor has it ever profited any Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist since, for Christ has not come back yet. Many Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists have insisted, and still insist, that the Church is not to look for "signs" but for Christ's "at any moment" coming. Yet in spite of all they have said and are saying, God goes steadily on giving these "signs", as Jesus declared that He would, and today, so far as I know, every sign foretold in the Scriptures as to precede the coming of Christ "immediately after the Tribulation" is in evidence, which was far from being the case during the rise, progress, and decline of "Irvingism" and the preaching of Darby and his associates. It is certain that unless Christ comes very soon to catch away His Church, she will find herself in the Great Tribulation, so rapidly are we approaching it; and so will find that she has been deluded with a false hope and has been following a "Will-o'-the-Wisp". To the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists such an experience would appear to be a failure of "The Word of Truth", when in reality it would be only an evidence of the falsity of their very modern doctrine, which has not "rightly divided" but has terribly mutilated "The Word of Truth". But to the Post-Tribulation-Rapturists such an event would be positive evidence that we indeed have "a more sure word of prophecy". 2 Peter 1:19. Later I shall show that some events which only a few years ago most PreTribulation-Rapturists were teaching would not and could not occur until after the Rapture of the Church, have already occurred. If some of them have already occurred, thus compelling these Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists to revise their teaching to this extent, may not all the events which they locate after the Rapture occur before it, and thus prove the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists to be as wrong in their teaching as we Post-Tribulation-Rapturists declare them to be?

4 See the chapter on "Some Pre-Tribulation-Rapture Texts".

THE FALLACY OF "THE JEWISH WASTEPAPER BASKET" THEORY

It is "The Jewish Gospel from Church, for admitted by the great majority of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture users of Wastepaper Basket", that the teaching of Jesus as recorded in John's the thirteenth to the seventeenth chapters, inclusive, is for the they cannot well avoid making that admission.

In point of time these five chapters in John's Gospel correspond with the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew, for they were given on the same day and under circumstances which would tend to make them much more likely to be "Jewish" than were Matthew 24 and 25. The discourse in Luke 21:8-28 was given to the disciples inside the Temple, which fact might be advanced as proof that Jesus was addressing them as representatives of the Jewish nation and not as representatives of the Church. Yet it is generally admitted by the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists that this discourse applied to the Church as it existed at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for when the Christians living in Jerusalem at that time saw "Jerusalem compassed with armies", they obeyed the command left by the Lord and fled "to the mountains" and so escaped the horrors of that terrible siege. Also to the early Church often was fulfilled another statement of Christ: "They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake." Verse 12. And again: "Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake." Verses 16,17. Also such words as these could hardly refer to any but Christians: "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Verses 14,15. So our PreTribulation-Rapture friends do well to admit that when speaking these words to His Jewish disciples, Jesus was addressing them as representative Christians, that is, as the nucleus of the Church which He would form on the Day of Pentecost by baptizing these Jewish disciples, and other disciples of the same nationality, into "One Body" or "Church". 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22,23. Not until eight years after the Church was formed were Gentiles admitted to it. The discourse in John was not given in the Temple but probably was given in some home in Jerusalem after Jesus and His disciples had left the Temple. Therefore, if environment indicates anything, this discourse as well as that in Luke 21 should be considered Jewish and not Christian in its application. But with some exceptions5 the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists make both applicable to the Church and so keep it from the Jewish Wastepaper Basket. But--and here is the odd part of the matter--the discourse recorded in Matthew 24 and 25 was given on Mount Olivet in the afternoon of the same day, therefore after Jesus and His disciples had gone outside Jerusalem, and after Jesus had spoken His final farewell to that city and the people it represented. He was through with the Jewish nation for the time being and was facing the Church age, so was addressing His disciples as representatives of the Church, not of the Jewish nation.

5 These exceptions are principally of the "Prison Epistles" or "Calling on High" school of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, to some of whose representatives I shall reply later.

"Time" and "Place" Ignored by the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists Usually very careful to emphasize the time and the place of the discourses of Jesus when the time and the place seem to favor a theory they wish to prove,6 the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists entirely ignore the time and the place of the delivery of the Matthew 24 and 25 discourse, because to emphasize them would be fatal to their theory. If the first discourse, given to Jewish disciples inside the Jewish Temple (which was the very heart of the Jewish nation), and the second discourse, given to the same Jewish disciples inside the Jewish City (which was the capital of the Jewish nation), are both Church truth (as the majority of Pre-TribulationRapturists admit), why then should not the third discourse, given to the same Jewish disciples outside the Jewish Capital and some distance from the Jewish Temple and after Jesus had uttered His farewell to both, also be Church truth? Only a man who has a pet theory to defend, and is determined to do this at any cost, would so wrest the Scriptures. What Jesus had to say to the Jewish nation He said to the representatives in Matthew 23, closing with these words: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." And this they will do when Zech. 12 is fulfilled. Then, following these stern yet sorrowful words to certain unbelieving Jews as representatives of the age-long unbelieving Jewish nation, come these significant words: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the Temple: and His disciples (Jewish representatives of the age-long believing Church, spiritual Israelites representing spiritual Israel) came to Him for to show Him the buildings of the Temple. And Jesus said unto them....There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Then, having passed out of the city, "as He sat upon the Mount of Olives", He resumed His discourse to the disciples, who because they had believed in Him, were no longer Jews but Christians.7 The spiritual baptism which they received on the Day of Pentecost did not make them stones ready for placing in the spiritual temple, the Church, but because they were stones through faith in Christ, as is evidenced by the words of Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16:18, they were brought by that baptism into "one body", and laid as the first course of "living stones" of that temple which Jesus by the Spirit was to build, and of which He Himself was to become the finishing touch, "The Chief Cornerstone". 1 Peter 2:4-8; Ephesians 2:20. If this is not a fair, honest presentation of the case, then I must confess that I do not understand what fairness and honesty are. As one writer says,

6 Thus they stress the fact that after Jesus had spoken certain parables to "the multitudes" by the sea, He "went into the house" and there gave other parables to His disciples. Matt. 13:1,2,34,36, as will be shown in a later volume. 7 "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 1 Corinthians 10:32. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile], there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:27,28. "Ye have...put on the new man....where there is neither Greek [Gentile] nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:9-11.

If this [Matt. 24,25] discourse was not for the Church because it was spoken to Jews, then none of the sayings of Christ are for the Church. Did He ever give any teaching, at any time, to other than Jews? Not only were "the twelve" Jews, but also the "multitudes" to whom He spoke were Jews.

Dr. Bullinger did take this extreme but wholly logical view--logical, that is, from the usual Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist premise; but very few other PreTribulation-Rapturists have dared to follow him. They should go all the way with Dr. Bullinger or refuse to go any part of the way with him, as we Post-TribulationRapturists do.8 Dr. Gaebelein Also Makes "A Crazy Quilt" of Matthew 24 Dr. A. C. Gaebelein is one of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists who, while following Dr. Bullinger a part of the way, feels that he cannot follow him all the way. In his "The Gospel of Matthew", page 14, volume 2, the Doctor says:
Much that follows after the declaration of the Lord concerning the building of the Church [Matthew 16:18] is to be applied to the Church.

But it is noticeable that he adds:

This [Mount of Olives Discourse] was given to the disciples after the Lord had spoken His last word to Jerusalem....We find it in the 24th and 25th chapters. In it the Lord teaches concerning the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church of God; Christendom [the so-called "Christian Nations] is in it likewise. The order is different. The Gentiles stand last. The reason for that is because THE CHURCH WILL BE REMOVED FIRST FROM THE EARTH and the professors of Christendom will be left, and are nothing but Gentiles and concerned in the judgment of the nations as made known by the Lord. The first part of Matthew 24 is Jewish throughout. From the fourth to the forty-fifth verse we have a most important prophecy, which gives the events which follow AFTER THE CHURCH IS TAKEN FROM THE EARTH.9 The Lord takes here many of the Old Testament prophecies and blends them in one great prophecy. The history of the last week of Daniel is here. The middle of the week after the first three years and a half is verse 15. Revelation, chapters 6-19 is all contained in these words of our Lord. He gave, then, the same truths, only more enlarged and in detail, from heaven as a last word and warning. Three parables follow in which the saved and unsaved are seen. Waiting and serving is the leading thought. Reward and casting out into outward darkness the twofold outcome. This, then, finds an application in Christendom and the Church. The ending of Matthew 25 is the judgment of nations. [The emphasis in capitals is mine. These sentences show why Dr. Gaebelein so mutilates this chapter. J.J.S.]

Thus, because of his need to make Matthew 24 fit Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, Dr. Gaebelein, too, makes a "crazy quilt" of it. We Post-Tribulation-Rapturists, having no such need, refuse to accept such a so-called "rightly dividing" of this chapter.

8 In a later volume will be found chapters on "The 'Suntelia' and 'Telos' Argument", and "At the Last Trump", in which I reply to some of Dr. Bullinger's views. 9 Thus Dr. Gaebelein places the allegedly unmentioned-by-the-Lord Rapture of the Church somewhere before Matthew 24:4, whereas the unbiased reader can readily see that the Lord not only distinctly mentions the Rapture, but also positively locates it in Matthew 24:31.

Did the Lord Give Us Only a Two-thirds Picture? The unbiased reader will naturally ask: "If in Matthew 16:18 the Lord mentions the Building of the Church, and in Matthew 24:45-47 He tells of the Rewarding of the Church, why did He not also somewhere between these passages describe the Rapture of the Church, and thus complete the picture? Dr. Gaebelein says that the Rapture of the Church is not mentioned anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew, thus declaring, in effect, that while professing to include the Church in this preview of the age, the Lord failed to mention this third and vastly important part of her experience, thus giving us only a two-thirds picture. However, he asserts that somewhere between these two Scriptures the Church will be raptured, although that rapture, he says, is not so much as hinted at in Matthew's Gospel. The Rapture of the Church Sandwiched Between the Building of the Church and the Rewarding of the Church I take sharp and strong issue with him in this, and assert that the Rapture of the Church is mentioned between the Scripture foretelling the Building of the Church, Matthew 16:18, and that predicting the Rewarding of the Church, Matthew 24:45-47; for in Matthew 24:29-31, in unmistakable terms, the Lord did foretell the Rapture of the Church in these words: "Immediately after the Tribulation of those days...shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...and He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."10 This "threefold cord" truth11 of the Building of the Church foretold in Matthew 16:18, the Rapture of the Church foretold in Matthew 24:29-31, and the Rewarding of the Church foretold in Matthew 24:45-47, is so simple, so clear and so indisputable that for one to teach otherwise is for that one to violate every rule of honest and intelligent Biblical exegesis, to break every law of logic, to prove himself to be as "willingly ignorant" as, and therefore in this matter in the same class with, the "last day scoffers", 2 Peter 3:3-7, and to give the "lie direct" to the Lord Jesus Christ. To me it is amazing, yea astounding, that any man professing to be a Bible teacher would venture to present to assumedly intelligent hearers or readers the contrary to what I have stated in the foregoing concerning this "threefold cord" truth. And no man would dare do so, as Dr. Gaebelein does, were it not for the fact that, because his hearers or readers want to believe this teaching since it pleases the flesh and tickles the "itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:3), their intellects fail to function while considering it. Thus being as "willingly ignorant" as is their teacher, Dr. Gaebelein's followers prove themselves to be as blind as he, and so he becomes, in this matter, a "blind leader of the blind". Verily, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

10 And not content with asserting, I also prove my assertion beyond possibility of questioning by any unbiased person in two articles which are to follow in a later volume, viz., "What Did Paul Teach the Thessalonians?" and "'The Three Gatherings': A Reply to Rev. F. E. Marsh". 11 "A threefold cord is not quickly broken." Eccl. 4:12.

The "Rapture Before the Tribulation" Delusion of the End of the Gospel Age Is Comparable to the "Glorified Messiah" Delusion of the End of the Law Age Strong language this? Yes, but it is the same kind of language that the Master Himself used under identically similar circumstances; for he used this kind of language when contending with or denouncing the ecclesiastical leaders and alleged teachers of prophecy of His day who, instead of teaching the people the flesh-chastening doctrine of first a coming suffering Messiah to call them to repentance (which doctrine naturally the people did not want), they taught them what they did want, viz., the flesh-pleasing doctrine of the coming of the Messiah in power and great glory to deliver them from Roman bondage and to make of them the rulers of the world. In other words, those teachers reversed God's order of first a crucified and then a crowned Messiah, and consequently of first a suffering-withHim and then a crowned-with-Him people, precisely as the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist teachers today reverse God's revealed order of first a Great Tribulation-tested and then a Raptured Church.12 Thus what Jeremiah said of the teachers and people of that day is equally true of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture teachers and people of this day: "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely...and My people love to have it so." Jeremiah 5:30,31. But, like Jeremiah, I ask, "And what will ye do in the end thereof?" Speaking for myself, I have no fear that "the end thereof" will prove me wrong. But God pity these people, if He consistently can do so, when "the end"--the Great Tribulation--shall come upon them "unawares" (Luke 21:34) "as a thief". 1 Thessalonians 5:4. Thus Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism is to the end-time of this age what the "Glorified Messiah" doctrine was to the end-time of that age; and this doctrine is equally devil-inspired and delusive with that doctrine. Therefore, all that Jesus said about that doctrine and its teachers and believers, in connection with that doctrine, I dare and do say about this doctrine and its teachers and believers. Making the Lord "A Lightning Change Artist" says: In the same book, "The Gospel of Matthew", page 220, Volume 2, Dr. Gaebelein

The Lord still speaks [in Matthew 24:45-51] to His disciples, but let us understand now while they are viewed in the first part as Jewish disciples and typical of the remnant of Israel in the end of the Jewish age, here the Lord looks upon them as soon to be in connection with something new, that is, Christianity. The parable [the parable of the faithful and wise servants, Matthew 24:45-51] is the simplest of all three [the other two parables to which the Doctor refers are the parable of the ten virgins and the parable of the talents, Matthew 35:1-30]; yet it has very significant and far-reaching lessons. The thought in this parable is service over the household; the household are those who are Christ's. This household is to receive food in season, and the bondman or servant, faithful and prudent, is to supply the household with that food. He does it faithfully, and at the coming of the Lord, this faithful and prudent bondman is set over all the substance of his Lord. This is an extremely 12 Always this is God's order. "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." 1 Cor. 15:46. "The evening and the morning were the first (second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth) day." Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31. In other words, night, darkness, preceded day. So Cain preceded Abel, Esau preceded Jacob, Ishmael preceded Isaac, Saul preceded David, Law preceded Grace, etc. So Egyptian bondage for Israel preceded Canaan blessedness of that people. So Antichrist's rule will precede the rule of the Christ. There are no exceptions to this order. Why endeavor to make an exception of the Church?

beautiful and blessed parable. It takes us at once upon an entirely new ground . Judaism knows nothing of that kind of ministry which is spoken of here; it is essentially Christian.

That is to say, now that the Doctor has proved to his entire satisfaction that the clearly-foretold-and-described Rapture of the Church in Matthew 24:31 is not the Rapture of the Church at all, but is something that in some way will be connected with the Jews after the Church shall have been raptured, he proceeds to assign the role of "lightning change artist" to the Lord. He causes Him suddenly, and without introduction or preface, to regard the disciples, not as "in the first part [of the chapter] as Jewish disciples and typical of the remnant of Israel in the end of the Jewish age", but "as soon to be in connection with something new, that is, Christianity". Oh, "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", what absurdities are committed in thy name! This Parable Just as Applicable to Judaism as to Christianity Says Dr. Gaebelein of this parable: "Judaism knows nothing of that kind of ministry which is spoken of here; it is essentially Christian." Yet it would be a safe bet that if it suited his purpose to do so, the Doctor would soon find in this parable a sufficient resemblance to Judaism to make it also applicable to the endof-the-Age Judaism and its Jewish remnant. For instance: What the "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers" are to the Church (Ephesians 4:11), the priests, Levites and other religious workers were to Israel. What the Gospel is to the Church, "the adoption, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises" were to Israel. Romans 9:4. Among the Israelitish religious workers were some who were "faithful and wise" servants, who gave to God's "household" (Israel) "meat in due season", and others who, like the sons of Eli (1 Samuel 2:12) were quite as bad as the "evil servant" of this parable. Oh, yes. It would have been an easy matter for Dr. Gaebelein to have made this parable also Jewish, applicable to the restored Jewish worship in the rebuilt Jewish temple and so available to the Jewish remnant of those days, if he had wanted to do so. But he just didn't want to do this. Why? Because having gotten around, or under, or over the "immediately-after-the-tribulation" Rapture Scripture, Matthew 24:29-31, by making it mean something connected with the Jews, he can safely apply the remainder of Matthew's Gospel to the Church. See? Cute, isn't it? And as damnable as cute. 2 Peter 2:1. Why Should the Lord Have Repeated Himself? And just as ridiculous as the foregoing is, so is this further piece of alleged "rightly dividing" of the same chapter. On pages 217,218, Volume 2, the Doctor says:
The second part of the Olivet discourse begins with the 45th verse of this great chapter and extends to chapter 25:30. The contents of this division are entirely different from the preceding one. Up to the forty-fourth verse we learned that the Lord gives predictions relating to the end of the Jewish age, an end still to come....But now another series of predictions are before us which have no connection with Old Testament prophecy nor with Revelation 6 to 19.

In the first part of this discourse we hear of wars, pestilence, famine, great tribulation, false Christs, the abomination of desolation, Judea, the Sabbath day and the visible and glorious coming of the Son of man. The exhortations were to flee to the mountains, to pray that the flight take not place on the Sabbath day, to endure unto the end for salvation, etc. OF ALL THIS WE DO NOT READ A WORD IN THE SECOND SECTION of our Lord's utterances. Here again He speaks in parable as He did in His second discourse in this Gospel, contained in chapter 13. [The emphasis is Dr. Gaebelein's.]

Would Dr. Gaebelein expect the Lord to repeat what He had just said in order to show that He was still speaking on the same subject? It looks like it, for he argues [if one may dignify such nonsense by the name of argument] that because "of all this we do not read a word in the [alleged] second [or parables] section of our Lord's utterances"; therefore, this alleged second part is "Church Truth", as distinct from the alleged first part, which, allegedly, is "Jewish Remnant Teaching". Having completed His statement, why should the Lord have repeated it in whole or in part? Of course, He did not do this, but proceeded by means of certain parables to exhort to faithfulness in view of what He had said; even as Peter, after having told his converts about certain future events, and without repeating anything he had just said, concluded by saying: "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless." 2 Peter 3:14. A Moderate (?) Exegetical Crook Reproves the Extreme Exegetical Crooks On pages 225,226, Volume 2, Dr. Gaebelein makes a very significant statement:
We have already shown that these parables have nothing more to do with the Jewish age and the remnant of His earthly people, which stands out so prominently in the first part of this discourse. However, as there is an increasing tendency among teachers of Prophecy to apply this parable of the virgins in a Jewish way, putting its fulfillment in the time of the great tribulation, we will be obligated to look at this view first and show that it is incorrect.

Then follows an argument against the interpretation which the extreme users of the Jewish Wastepaper Basket give of this parable, ending with the words:
This is generally taken to be the conclusive evidence that the parable falls in its fulfillment in the close of the great tribulation and that the five prudent virgins are the Jewish remnant.

So, having himself made use of the Jewish Wastepaper Basket up to verse 44 of the Olivet Discourse, Dr. Gaebelein now strenuously objects to its further use in connection with the Discourse. But again, why? His explanation of the parable of the ten virgins is no better than that offered by these others. However, having safely passed the "immediately-after-the-tribulation" Rapture passage, the Doctor can now afford to pose as a very careful and conservative Bible teacher, and as such, to oppose the further use of that "Basket" which, until the danger point was passed, he found so very convenient for his own use. Which is about as consistent as it would be for a crook who, having acquired a fortune by questionable practices, should suddenly turn "honest" and proceed to fight other rather more greedy crooks, of course enjoying his ill-gotten gains while doing so.

Why "The Jewish Wastepaper Basket"? The "increasing tendency" to Judaize the New Testament Scriptures, to which Dr. Gaebelein refers, is due to the fact that as we drive some of our opponents from the trenches of their old Pre-Tribulation-Rapture positions, they "dig in" still farther back into the "bad lands" of the so-called "Church Truth" country to which they have been forced to retreat, since they will not surrender. Dr. Bullinger and his followers have gone "way back" into that so-called "Church Truth" country, and "dug in"; but Dr. Gaebelein and his followers are still trying to hold some of the nearer trenches. At present, it is on these that we are concentrating our rifle and machine gun fire and dropping our hand grenades, only occasionally sending a shell over into those back line trenches in order to remind their occupants that we know where they are, and that we purpose (D.V.) getting down their way later to fight them at close quarters.

MATTHEW 24 INTENDED FOR CHRISTIANS

Frank H. White Examines Matthew 24 Some time after the foregoing was written, there came into my hands a copy of an excellent booklet, "The Saints' Rest and Rapture: When and for Whom?" by Frank H. White, from which I take the liberty to quote the following:
It is often objected that the prophetic instructions and warnings given by our Lord in Matthew 24 have no direct bearing on ourselves as present-day believers. Rather, the disciples, including Peter, James, and John (who had forsaken all and followed Christ), were representatives not of "The Church of the Firstborn," but of a future "Jewish Remnant" who will be found in the place of testimony during the last Great Tribulation, "after the Church has been Raptured";1 others affirm that they represent those who will be converted under the preaching of "The Gospel of the Kingdom" after the completion and removal of the body of Christ".2 That our Lord, in Matthew 24, was not addressing Jews as such is abundantly clear from the concluding verses of Chapter 23, which indeed seem expressly recorded to warn us against such a thought, marking, as they do, the close of the Savior's personal ministry in Jerusalem, and containing His solemn and significant declaration that they (the Jewish people) should see him no more until his return in glory. "For I say to you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, 'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." After speaking these words, it is written, "Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him"--"His disciples" who had left all, and followed Him, and of whom He witnessed, "Ye are they who have continued with Me in My temptations," (Luke 22:28)--to whom a little after He said, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knows not what his lord does: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you" (John 15:15). The very same disciples of whom he afterwards testified, "They have kept Thy word. They have known that all things whatsoever Thou hast given Me are of Thee. For I have given unto them the words which Thou gave Me" (John 17:6-8). The very same disciples for whom he then prayed, "Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory" (John 17:24). If such disciples were not Christians proper, and so do not properly represent us in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, when instructed by the Lord with respect to circumstances that should surround them after His departure, and after they should have received the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, when do they represent us, if at all? [ B. W. Newton]3 If we reject our Lord's counsel in the above Scriptures, can we consistently claim 1 "When the Church, which is Christ' Body, has been received into glory a Jewish remnant of elect ones shall take her place as witness bearers and be recognized as the then company of God's saints and Christ's servants on earth." So says "the Morning Star", London, England, Nov., 1894. 2 I deal with this theory in the chapter in Volume 2, "Who Will Preach the Gospel During the Great Tribulation?", in which chapter I show that the only "Gospel" that will then be preached is "The Everlasting Gospel", and this only by angelic ministry; conditions then being such as to make impossible any preaching by human beings. 3 It is true they were Jews by nature and externally surrounded by Jewish circumstances and inwardly filled with Jewish prejudices; nevertheless they were, by faith in His name, His own disciples, who had received and confessed Him as Lord and Saviour, and so had become the sons of God, to be afterwards manifested in glory with us who have believed on Him "through their word". John 1:12; 17:20; Romans 8:19-23; Hebrews 2:10. [This footnote by Mr. White]

His comfort in John 13 to 17? Were not the Apostles quite as much Jews by nature and by earthly location, when that precious promise fell on their opened ears, in John 14:3, "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself", as when the same Lord said to the same company a few hours before, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and puts forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: so ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that HE (R.V.) is nigh, even at the doors," Mark 13:28,29? And as if anticipating the teaching against which we contend, He adds, "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:37. Must we no longer take our marching orders as preachers and teachers from the Lord's great and final commission, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you?"4 Matt. 28:19, R.V. Again, are we prepared to give up that blessed assurance of our Lord's, "And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age"? Matt. 28:20, R.V. Indeed some have not hesitated to accept this latter inevitable conclusion, and to affirm that "the Lord's Supper as recorded in the Gospels would not be binding upon us in this dispensation had not the Apostle Paul received of the Lord a special revelation on the subject".5 4 In the Gospels, many instructions were addressed to the disciples in their then present circumstances, which ceased to exist after the death and resurrection of their Lord, and all such instructions were of necessity limited to the time then present. Thus it is not said to us, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles," Matt. 10:5. But it is otherwise with those passages which were intended to guide their service during the time of His personal absence from them. B. W. Newton, "Coming of the Lord" page 17. [This footnote by Mr. White.] 5 In "What Did Paul Teach the Thessalonians?", which will appear in Volume 2, I show, indisputably, that Paul either possessed or had access to a copy of the Gospel by Matthew; and that when he wrote, "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord", etc., 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, he meant, "the word of the Lord" as contained in Matthew 24:29-31. One has only to compare Paul's words to the Corinthians on the subject of the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, with the Lord's own words about it, Matthew 26:26-28, to see that the Apostle could easily have obtained his information concerning the Lord's Supper from his copy of Matthew's Gospel, which contains this "word of the Lord" also. Paul's personal acquaintance with "the twelve" would furnish him the few extra details contained in his account which are not recorded by Matthew. Or a man as intelligent as Paul was, and as well acquainted with the Jewish feasts, including the Passover, which so graphically typifies the death of "The Lamb of God" for the sins and life of the world, could easily have deduced those extra trifling details from Matthew's record of the last supper. Thus Paul could just as well say in this case, "I have received of the Lord", etc., as in the other case, "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord", etc., for in each case, what he mentioned was contained in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as found in Matthew's Gospel. If the Lord had first given Matthew's Gospel, in which the Lord's Supper is included, to the disciples as Jews--i.e., as representing not the Church but the Jewish Remnant of the Tribulation--and then had revealed that supper to Paul as "Church Truth", He would have been bestowing upon the Church, apparently as an afterthought, something which He had stolen from the Jewish Remnant; whose possession it was once it was given to them. I say "stolen from the Jewish Remnant" because by making the Lord's Supper "Church Truth", that is to say, a Christian ordinance, necessarily the Jewish Remnant was deprived of it; for, as I explain and stress in other parts of these volumes, there is absolutely no evidence that the Jewish Remnant will become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ until He shall have revealed Himself to their nation as such at the end of the Tribulation: and so a Christian ordinance could not be made use of by them during the Tribulation, since, at the best, until the Lord shall return, they will be only a company of pious not Christian Jews. Although only extreme Pre-TribulationRapturists hold this absurd idea, yet it is a result of that doctrine, and so the tree must be adjudged evil because it bears such evil fruit. The only purpose in endeavoring to make all or the great part of Matthew 24 "Jewish Remnant Teaching" is TO GET RID OF VERSES 29 TO 31, BECAUSE IF ACCEPTED AS "CHURCH TRUTH" THESE THREE VERSES WOULD INSTANTLY

S. D. ("Quiet Talks") Gordon Examines Matthew 24 S. D. ("Quiet Talks") Gordon comments interestingly on the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew on pages 40-45 of his book, "Quiet Talks About Our Lord's Return", as follows:
Let us keep in mind that this is our Lord's answer to the questions about His coming, the full-end of the age, and the destruction of Jerusalem, which in their (the disciples') minds was connected with His coming. The Olivet Talk, in Matthew's account of it, may be easily grouped under three general headings, after the introductory bit out of which it all grew. The first of these may be called the tribulation group of paragraphs. It runs from verses four to forty-four of chapter twenty-four. In it our Lord speaks of a time of great distress or tribulation coming to the whole earth. This is the uppermost thought through the whole section. This is apt to come as a distinct surprise to one who is listening for something about His coming again. Yet this is the first thing He speaks of in answering the questions about when He will come. There are five distinct paragraphs in this tribulation section. The first paragraph runs through verses four to eight. It cautions against evil men coming under the pretence of being Christ, and gives the general characteristics of the tribulation in its beginnings as wars, rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes. The second paragraph runs through verses nine to fourteen inclusive. It tells of great tribulation coming to the Lord's followers. It helps here to remember who these disciples are representatively,--not the Jewish nation but the Church. The Church will suffer during this awful time of persecution, and some will be killed. As a result of the terrible persecution there will be a great testing and sifting. Many will "stumble", that is, give up their faith; false religious teachers will add to the confusion; and the love of many true Christians will grow cold. These are the general characteristics of the time for the Christian people. Then our Lord gives a clue to determining when the end of all will come,--it will not be until the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached in all the world as a testimony unto all nations. The third paragraph runs through verses fifteen to twenty-eight. The gives the opening event of this tribulation time, by which its beginning may be surely recognized. Jesus makes a quotation from Daniel, referring to something or someone called "the abomination of desolation"; when this is seen standing in the holy place of the temple in Jerusalem, that will indicate the beginning of this great tribulation. And our Lord significantly adds "let him that reads understand". This event will be followed by a time of awful happenings. The tribulation will be such as has never been known, and never will be again. It will be a time of such terrible experience for Christ's own followers that for their sakes it is mercifully shortened.... The fourth paragraph is a brief one but brings us to the central event we are thinking of. It runs through verses twenty-nine to thirty-one, and fixes the closing event of the tribulation time. There will be disturbances in the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars, and "the powers of the heavens (i.e., powers of physical attraction and cohesion) shall be shaken". Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. His appearance will cause mourning among all the tribes of the earth. The word translated "mourning" has in it the thought of grief. And that suggests a sorrow and penitence among men when they see and recognize the Lord Jesus in His glory. Then he sends His angels with the great sound of a trumpet, and the redeemed will be caught up into His presence from every corner of the earth. DESTROY PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM.

The fifth paragraph runs through verses thirty-two to forty-four, and mingles earnest pleadings to faithfulness with additional information. The budding of the fig tree was a certain sign to them of the coming of summer, so these occurrences will be the sure indication not only of His coming but that He is near. Then comes the prophetic utterance about the preservation of the Jewish race until all these things shall take place. Then an assurance of the absolute certainty of these events occurring; but the secrecy of the time from all, save the Father. The people of the earth will be as unprepared and as completely taken by surprise as were the people in the days of Noah. The separation of some being caught up, and the rest being left on the earth, would come as they were busy about their common duties, utterly unexpectant of anything unusual likely to occur just then. Then is the earnest plea to live so as to be always ready for His coming however unexpected it may be when it actually occurs.... It is interesting to note that the line of division between the Jew, the nations, and Christ's followers, is distinctly drawn in this Olivet Talk. The Jews are referred to in the third person, as "this people", Luke 21:23, as "they", Luke 21:24, and as "this race", Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32. The nations or people of the earth generally, as distinct from Jew and from the group of Christ's followers, are referred to, likewise, in the third person, as "Gentiles". Christ's followers are spoken to, the second person being used. The persecution which they suffer is "for My Name's sake". Matt. 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:12. To them is promised special wisdom in need, Mark 13:11; it is they who are urged to be watchful against the evil, and for His return. Indeed the whole talk is addressed to the circle of Christ's own people, later called the Church. Here then may be put into a few sentences the teaching of Matthew, from our Lord's own lips regarding His return. It is to be preceded by a time of tribulation, which will be a terrible experience for all, and of sore testing and suffering for God's people. This will be introduced by an event in the Jewish world at Jerusalem, something or someone, called "the abomination of desolation", set up in the holy place in the temple at Jerusalem. And it will come to an end with an unsettling or shaking of the powers that hold the heavenly bodies in their places. Then our Lord Jesus Himself shall come openly to all, in great glory, and gather to Himself His own followers, leaving all others on the earth. His coming will find the world wholly unprepared.

Nathaniel West Examines Matthew 24 The following article by Nathaniel West, the only one I have been able to get so far, is appropriate here.
It is remarkable how plainly the 70th week dominates the structure of our Lord's Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24:15 to Matthew 25:40. Warning against three snares--(1) that His Advent might be any moment, 24:4,5; (2) that it might be a secret one, 24:27; (3) that it might precede the close of the Tribulation, 24:29-31--He addresses the four apostles, Mark 13:3, as representatives of "The Twelve" and of the whole Church as a corporate unit, surviving till He comes (the "ye" and the "you" of the great commission) and answers the questions as to the "when" and the "what", the Time and the Sign of His Second Coming and of the End of the Age. He first of all describes the painful and checkered "Times of the Gentiles", down to the "End", the interval between the 69th and 70th weeks, yet covering silently the 70th week itself, even to the "End", Matthew 24:4-14.

He then reverts to the middle of the 70th week, when the "Abomination" will "stand in a holy place", 24:15, and proceeds to describe the Great Tribulation, or last 1260 days of the Antichrist, 24:15-29. At the close comes His Parousia for His Saints, precisely as Daniel had pictured it. See Daniel 7:13, 25-27; 12:1-3. He calls it the "thief-time", 24:44, as John also does, placing the "Thief-time" after the 6th Vial, Revelation 16:15, which with the 7th closes the Tribulation at the last sound of the 7th Trumpet. Rev. 11:15-18. He makes the Resurrection and the Rapture the first acts at His coming, the gathering of His elect by His angelic ministry, 24:30,40,41,44; 25:1. He next pictures the judgment of the living Gentiles, 25:31-46, gathered as they will be, at Jerusalem, in their last conflict with Israel. His throne of glory overhanging Olivet in front of the city, the nations separated right and left, converted Israel holding the city delivered by His hand. In that Judgment the Antichrist is destroyed. He points to New-Born Israel, the nearest His throne, and calls them "these My brethren", 25:40--Daniel's "people of the saints". Daniel 7:27. He makes their deliverance immediately subsequent to the Rapture of the Church, this occurring at 24:30,31,40,41; 25:1; that at 25:40; and, like Daniel, crowns the whole scene with the destruction of the wicked, the salvation of the righteous, and the "Kingdom" of the "life everlasting", Matthew 25:34-46; Daniel 12:1-3,13. From first to last the book of Daniel is His guide. He simply puts together the events in the Ends of Daniel's book, chapters 2, 7, 9, 11, and all of 12, the events of the 70th week, and assigning the church to her place, "ye" and "you" in the same perspective, adding parables and admonitions, concludes His answer to the questions proposed. He separates Jerusalem's destruction, Daniel 9:26, from His Parousia, Daniel 7:13, by the interval of the "Unto the End", Daniel 9:26, or "Times of the Gentiles", Luke 21:24. He identifies His second coming with the "End of the Age", the end of Gentile times, the end of the 70th week. In Heb. 11:35,39,40, Paul declares that Israel's resurrection and ours occur at the same point of time, and are one. It is needless to say that the apostles followed their Master's teaching, and took His Olivet discourse as the text-book of their eschatology. It ruled the whole faith of the early church. It settled every heresy as to the time of the advent. It corrected the Thessalonian error as to the "any moment view". Paul appeals to it to decide the question. He calls it the "Word of the Lord". He had it on the table when he wrote both letters to the Thessalonians. He uses its very language. The 70th week covers his own words in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. John reproduces it in full, in its two halves of twice 1,260, and gives its middle point as that of the slaughter of the "Two Witnesses" in Jerusalem, by the Antichrist during the time of the building of their temple in unbelief, Rev:11:2,3,7. He repeats the last 1,260 days again, in Revelation 12:6,14; 13:5; and gives their end-point in 11:15-19; 14:13-20; 19:11-21.6 Every prophecy of the Testament, and every representation of the timepoint of the second coming of Christ for His saints, is dominated and determined by the jurisdiction of the Interval and the 70 weeks. This is absolutely conclusive 6 Many Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, among them Dr. Gaebelein, as we have seen in the quotation on page 100 from his book "The Gospel of Matthew", hold the view here presented by Dr. West, viz., that the entire seventieth "week" of Daniel's prophecy is included in chapters six to nineteen of The Revelation. In a later article, "The Duration of the Tribulation", I shall endeavor to show that only the second half of that "week" is dealt with in those chapters. Whichever view is held on this point does not affect the main subject of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism versus Post-Tribulation-Rapturism, as is evident from the fact that Dr. West, an ardent Post-Tribulation-Rapturist, and Dr. Gaebelein, a pronounced Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist, both hold it. I shall take the matter up in the chapter mentioned only in an attempt to simplify The Revelation.

against all the vain time-reckonings and the groundless inventions of men of modern times unskilled in the "sure word of prophecy". The doctrine of the Seventy Weeks provides for us the only data in connection with the "Signs of the Times", as foretold by our Lord, for any approximate determination of the nearness of the advent. How much of the interval between the 69th and 70th weeks remains to run is known only to God. When the Antichrist and the Jews are in "covenant" at the beginning of the 70th week, and clearer still, when the breach occurs between them at the "middle of the week", then the determination of the year, perhaps the month, but never of the "day or hour",7 will be certain, to all believers. To watch always and wait patiently is the believer's privilege. Prophetic nearness is one thing, chronological nearness is another, and yet faith and hope overlap all intervening events. The relatively brief remainder of the Interval, and the Antichrist, are what is immediately before us, and with all sobriety we can say that it is this that lends an interest, so solemn and absorbing, to the attitude of the nations, the extension of missions, the Jewish movements, the Eastern Question, the crimes of Christendom, and the current events in both hemispheres of the world.

An Improbable Idea Edmund Shackleton says:

The idea is improbable, that an infinitely wise God should have entrusted to such fallible creatures as we are the task of apportioning the New Testament Scriptures between Christians and Jews. I do not, of course, refer to those passages which obviously speak of Israel. As a matter of fact, the adherents of this theory differ among themselves as to the right way to apply it. Some take certain passages of a book as Jewish and retain the rest as meant for Christians; whilst others, with more consistency, excise the whole book. No part of the New Testament seems safe from their pruning-knife. The Apocalypse even, guarded as it is by the promise of blessing to the reader, as well as by the solemn warning at its close to anyone who adds to or takes from its contents, has not escaped. The whole book has, by one writer at least, been Judaized,8 and all this school are in the habit of dealing thus with the portion between the third and twentieth chapters. The first three Gospels, the Acts, and all the Epistles, save the Pauline, have frequently been thus assailed. As Paul is said to be the revealer of the Secret Rapture, his writings have been spared by most, but not by all. The epistle to the Hebrews seems the one most obnoxious, and it has been recently asserted that it is for the Millennium. This is a singular notion; for the coming of Christ is frequently mentioned throughout this epistle as still in the future, and is held up as an incentive for faithfulness to Christ. 7 But may it not be that so accurate are Biblical "times" and "seasons", Acts 1:7, that the coming of Christ will occur exactly seven Roman years, of 360 days each, to the very hour, from the time that Antichrist shall "confirm the covenant" with the Jews? Hence may it not be possible for us to know both the day and the hour of Christ's return, counting from the time of the confirming of that covenant? Was not such a foreknowledge typified by the final seven days' notice which the Lord gave Noah to enable him to finish his work and enter the ark before the flood came? For more on this subject, see "How Long Was Noah In The Ark?", in this volume, and "The Thief-like Coming" in a later volume. 8 E. W. Bullinger, an examination of portions of whose book, "The Apocalypse", or, "The Day of the Lord'", will be found among the chapters on "At the Last Trump" and in "The 'Suntelia' and 'Telos' Argument: A Reply to Rev. E. W. Bullinger", in later volumes.

Much more might be said, but this is sufficient to justify me in entirely discarding the Judaizing system in this enquiry. Pages 9,10, "Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?"

A QUARTET OF FALSE DOCTRINES

Among the many "damnable heresies" which, as Peter predicted, 2 Peter 2:1, would be introduced into the Church by "false teachers" (some of them none the less false teachers in these matters, and so dupes of the devil, because in other matters they were, undoubtedly, true teachers and so gospelors of God) are these four: Origenism, Post-Millennialism, Modernism, and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. In order to show that the last of this quartet is just as much a "damnable heresy" as are the others, I shall now briefly examine the first three of these false doctrines--recognized and branded as such by all Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists-and compare them with the fourth, Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, in order to show the distinct family resemblance between them. Origenism and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Great as the difference seems to be, at first sight, between Pre-TribulationRapturism and the so-called "spiritualizing" of the Scriptures, sometimes called "The Allegorical Mode of Interpreting Scripture", there really is close kinship between them. Concerning the so-called "spiritualizing" of the Scriptures, Mr. Shackleton says:
The departing from the literal mode of understanding the language of inspiration has been the source of immeasurable evil to the cause of the truth. In was by means of the allegorizing of Scripture that the Church drifted into the darkness of Popery, so that even the Pre-Millennial advent, that bright hope of the Church, became lost to view. In proof of this I shall quote from two well-known Christian historians. The first is Mosheim, who is an unbiased witness, being himself an allegorist. Writing of Origen, who, in the third century, first brought into vogue this allegorical system of interpretation, he says: "The Christian doctors, who had applied themselves to the study of letters and philosophy, soon abandoned the frequented paths, and struck out into the devious wilds of fancy. Origen was at the head of this speculative tribe." And again: "He maintained that the Holy Scriptures were to be interpreted in the same allegorical manner that the Platonists explained the history of their gods....In this devious path he displays the most ingenious strokes of fancy, though always at the expense of Truth, whose divine simplicity is scarcely discernible through the cobweb veil of allegory. Long before his day an opinion had prevailed that Christ was to come and reign a thousand years among men before the entire and final dissolution of the world. This opinion had hitherto met with no opposition; but in this century its credit began to decline, principally through the influence and authority of Origen, who opposed it with the greatest warmth, because it was incompatible with some of his favorite sentiments." Milner writes: "No man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever injured the Church of Christ as Origen did. From the fanciful mode of allegory introduced by him, and uncontrolled by Scriptural rule and order, arose a vitiated method of commenting on the sacred pages....A thick mist for ages pervaded the Christian world, supported and strengthened by his absurd allegorical manner of interpretation. The learned alone were considered as guides implicitly to be trusted; and the vulgar, when the literal sense was hissed off the stage, had nothing to do but to follow their authority wherever it might conduct them." In the writings of this school no unanimity is to be found. The cause of this is

evident. If the language of Scripture is not taken in its obvious and natural sense, who is to determine what degree of looseness of interpretation is permissible? From these and many other considerations, I conclude that the allegorical mode of interpreting prophecy has been proved to be an evil tree, on the principle that a tree is known by its fruits. The same may be said of the inferential method of the Secret Rapture school. Pages 11-13, "Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?"

Just as Origen's pernicious allegorizing of the Scriptures has caused many of the teachers of the Church to "abandon the frequented paths and strike out into the devious wilds of fancy", "always at the expense of Truth" and the hiding of her "divine simplicity" under "the cobweb veil of allegory", so has done PreTribulation-Rapturism with its "inferential method" (of which more later).9 Origen's system of interpretation has resulted in the splitting up of the Church into almost innumerable "schools"; and naturally and necessarily so, for contrary to the statement of Peter that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation", 2 Peter 1:20, it has made all Scripture to be of "private interpretation"; for where all is guesswork, one man has as much right to guess as another. Darby's system of interpretation has had precisely the same effect upon PreMillennialism, for it has divided the adherents of this blessed truth into two main companies, Post-Tribulation-Rapturists and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, and has subdivided the latter into so many different "schools" that it is practically impossible to keep track of them all. And why not? If John Darby, following the lead of the Irvingite woman, had the right to throw into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket all Scriptures that he could not reconcile with his pet theory, then all others had the same right to place in that convenient receptacle all Scriptures that they could not fit in with their pet theories. For this reason, I make a similar charge against Darby to that which Milner made against Origen, as quoted above:
No man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever injured the cause of PreMillennialism as Darby did. From the Jewish Wastepaper Basket mode of "dividing the Word of Truth" introduced by him, and uncontrolled by Scriptural rule and order, arose a vitiated method of commenting on the sacred pages....A thick mist for a hundred years has pervaded the Pre-Millennial world, supported and strengthened by his absurd "Jewish Wastepaper Basket" manner of interpretation. The learned (in this "inferential method" of "dividing the Word of Truth") alone are considered as guides implicitly to be trusted; and the vulgar, since Post-Tribulation-Rapturism was hissed off the stage, have had nothing to do but to follow their authority wherever it might conduct them.

Another writer says still more forcibly,

"If it be once admitted that the apostles did not receive instructions from the Lord as Christians for Christians, the foundations of Christian truth are gone."

9 See "Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Merely Inferential".

Modernism and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism That this warning is timely, the progress made by "Modernism" proves; and this very modern so-called "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", this casting into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket of many Biblical truths, is akin to and has helped encourage the latter-day "great delusion" of "Modernism". In fact, it is a part of it; for Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism handles some portions of the prophetic Scriptures almost as sacrilegiously as Modernism handles other portions. The Modernists admit that "the Virgin Birth" is taught in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but say it is taught there because Matthew and Luke were Jews who held the Jewish tradition, mistakenly based upon Isaiah 7:14, of a virgin-born Messiah, therefore declared, of course mistakenly, that Jesus was so born. You cannot find the virgin birth in the epistles of Paul, they say, hence it is not true, or Paul, a much more intelligent man, would have mentioned it.10 The Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists admit that the coming of the Lord for His "elect" "immediately after the Tribulation" is taught in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but say that it is not taught in the epistles of Paul; therefore, they say, if the disciples of any period supposed that the coming of Christ for "His elect" after the Tribulation meant Christ's coming for His Church, they were mistaken: for Paul shows that that "stage" of the Lord's coming is to take place before the Tribulation.11 Even the casual reader can immediately detect the similarity of
10 As to this: In the only place in which Paul mentions the birth of Jesus, Galatians 4:4, he is careful to say that He was "MADE of a woman", not "BORN of a woman"; which phrase is used when the birth of a child begotten of a man is meant. See Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; Matthew 11:11. In Galatians 4:4, Paul uses not the Greek word "gennao"--"to begat" or "bring forth", and which is properly rendered either "born" or "begotten", but "ginomai"--"to become" or "to begin to be"; which word, so far as I know, is never rendered "born", and is in many places used to signify a miraculous or Divine work. See Matthew 4:3; John 1:3,10,14; 2:9; 5:4,6,9,14. In other places, where human birth is meant, Paul uses the word "gennao", or "born"; as, for instance, in Acts 22:3,28 when speaking of his own birth, and in Romans 9:11 when speaking of the births of Esau and Jacob; and again in Galatians 4:23,29 when speaking of the births of Ishmael and Isaac. So his change from the word "gennao", used in Galatians 4:23,29 to denote that Ishmael and Isaac were "born", i.e., of a man and a woman, to the word "ginomai" in the same chapter, to denote that Jesus was "made", i.e., of a woman only, seems to be a clear endorsement of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. 11 As to this: The coming, or "Parousia" of Christ "immediately after the Tribulation", was the only coming known to the Church for the first eighteen hundred years of her history, as is evidenced by the fact that although the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ was dealt with exhaustively by many Christian writers during those eighteen centuries, there can be found no trace in their writings of an alleged "first stage" of Christ's Second Coming; or what I am here calling Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. Since they cannot deny this fact, some Pre-Tribulation-Rapture writers, in order, if possible, to avoid its fatal force, declare that the absence of any mention of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism in these Church writings is due to the (alleged) fact that immediately after the death of Paul the Church FORGOT this part of his teaching; hence it was never mentioned later, until after it had been re-revealed about a hundred years so. Such an explanation (?) is an insult both to the Holy Spirit, the Teacher of the Church, and to human intelligence, and shows to what almost blasphemous lengths some of these people will go in order to defend their doctrine. Of all the teachings of Paul, why should this alleged doctrine of his have been forgotten by his friends and followers? And having once learned it, how could they have forgotten it seeing that they possessed copies of his epistles in which, allegedly, it is clearly taught? It is true that during "The Dark Ages", 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D., the professed church lost or forgot practically all "sound doctrine". But that left almost five hundred years, and those years the nearest to the apostolic period, for men who had

reasoning. The "wisdom" of "that old serpent, the devil" is revealed in no better way than in the way in which he enlarged the scope of Modernism by introducing it in the guise of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. Knowing full well that he would be unable to get Modernism into genuine evangelical circles unless it was disguised very cleverly, Satan undertook to deceive, and succeeded in deceiving, such staunch evangelicals as Darby, Scofield, Gaebelein, et al, into accepting Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, and then induced these men to handle all Scriptures bearing upon the Rapture of the Church in much the same way that the Modernists handle other Scriptures; that is to say, by casting into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket all Scriptures which oppose their doctrine, as the Modernists cast out all Scriptures which they do not want, and by interpreting all the rest of these Scriptures in such a way as to force them to fit what they want to teach, precisely as the Modernists do with such Scriptures as they accept. Thus tens of thousands who perhaps would not listen to a sermon or read an article by such Modernists as Shailer Matthews or Harry Emerson Fosdick, will eagerly swallow this disguised Modernism and smack their lips over it when it is presented by A Torrey, a Gray, a Scofield, or a Gaebelein on this side of the ocean, or by a Panton, a Marsh, or a Sir Robert Anderson on the other side. And because it has the strong endorsement of such great men, many thousands of evangelists and ministers, who do not know its true character, present it from hundreds of evangelical platforms, and a multitude of professedly evangelical publishing houses turn out multiplied millions of copies of tracts, papers, and books containing it. And these same evangelicals will anathematize and excommunicate those other evangelicals whose eyes have been opened to see the delusion and so will have none of it. "An angel of light"? Yes, Satan can and often does appear as such. "Wise as a serpent"? Yea, verily! Satan is just that. Post-Millennialism and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Until the early part of the third century A.D., when Origen introduced his "allegorical" and "spiritual" method of interpreting the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Second, Personal, Pre-Millennial Coming of Christ was universally held by the Church. Origenism reduced that coming to a mere allegorical or spiritual coming, which idea many accepted and some still hold. However, without exception, all those who continued to believe in the literal return of the Lord continued also to believe that it would be Pre-Millennial. But a little more than two hundred years ago, Dr. Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), who, like Origen, was a Unitarian--Whitby having been first a Calvinist, then an Arminian, but later becoming an Arian or Unitarian--introduced his "New Hypothesis" or "New Discovery", which we now know as "Post-Millennialism", or the doctrine that the Lord will not return to the earth until after the Millennium.

not lost "sound doctrine" to write on every aspect of the Lord's Coming, and these men did write, voluminously, on this subject, yet not one of them even hints at the doctrine of the Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. And it is significant that at the Reformation, when the Dark Ages came to an end and men again began to give much thought to the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ, not one of them, so far as is known, ever gave a hint of an alleged "first stage" of that Coming; until John Darby, about 1830, obtained the idea from the alleged "Spirit message" given by the Irvingite woman, as related in "The Origin of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism".

Now I will show some of the resemblances between those two alleged "new discoveries", Post-Millennialism and Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. 1. About 200 years ago Daniel Whitby introduced his "New Discovery", PostMillennialism, which "grew out of the fact that Protestantism was a great improvement on the Catholicism of the Dark Ages; and as the world seemed to be growing better as a result of the Reformation, it was assumed by Dr. Daniel Whitby and Dr. Daniel Brown that it would continue to improve until the end of the age, when the Millennium would be ushered in and Christ would return at the close of the thousand years". About 100 years ago John Darby introduced his "New Discovery", which I am now calling "Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism", which grew out of the alleged "Spirit message" of the Irvingite woman, as related in "The Origin of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism". 2. Dr. Whitby and many of his associates, such as Mosheim, Russell, Burton, and Shield, testify that the Pre-Millennial doctrine was universal for the first three hundred years of Church history. It is also indisputable that for over sixteen hundred years of that history, wherever the doctrine of the literal coming of the Lord was taught, it was declared to be Pre-Millennial. All well-informed Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists are compelled to admit that for the first three hundred years of Church history, the Post-Tribulation-Rapture doctrine was universally held. It is also indisputable that for eighteen hundred years of that history, wherever a literal Rapture of the Church was taught, it was declared to be Post-Tribulation. 3. When Daniel Whitby introduced his new doctrine of Post-Millennialism, it quickly became so popular as almost to destroy the old truth of Pre-Millennialism. So much so that even in my own youth, 1863-1883, a Pre-Millennialist was, comparatively speaking, a "rara avis". When John Darby introduced the new doctrine of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, it quickly became so popular as almost to destroy the old truth of Post-TribulationRapturism. So much so that not until several years after I had learned this old truth, by an independent reading of the New Testament, did I meet anyone who held it--that first one being Dr. Nathaniel West, an ex-Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist, of whom mention has already been made in this volume. 4. In spite of the unpopularity of their position, (how unpopular it was I learned to my cost upon more than one occasion), a few men continued to walk in "the old path" of Pre-Millennialism. Gradually others joined them, constrained to do so by an honest investigation of its claims. Later, many others entered upon that "old path", compelled to do so by "the inexorable logic of facts", the socalled "World War" having convinced them that Post-Millennialism was false. In spite of the unpopularity of their position (how unpopular it was, and is, none know better than myself), a few men, such as S. P. Tregelles, Charles H. Spurgeon, and George Muller--each one a giant in the Christian world--continued to walk in "the old path" of Post-Tribulation-Rapturism. Others joined them (I have mentioned a few of these men), constrained to do so by an honest investigation of its claims. And we are expecting that in the not distant future many more will enter upon this "old path", forced to do so by "the inexorable logic of facts"--the facts of fulfilling prophecy. Already some Pre-Tribulation-Rapture writers and speakers are expressing surprise that the Rapture of the Church has been so long delayed, for they are now seeing some prophecies being fulfilled which a few years

ago they were declaring would not be fulfilled until after the Church had been caught away. As time passes, they will have still more occasion for surprise, for the Tribulation itself will burst upon them, and then, if they shall not have done so before, they will be compelled to admit that Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, which will then have died, was a delusion of the devil. 5. Post-Millennialism has its root in the pride of man, for it is planted in the ground of man's belief that the world can and will be won to Christ by the efforts of man during the absence of Christ. Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism has its root in the fear of man, for it is planted in the ground of man's natural desire to avoid the painful. Tertullian maintained: "Whatever is first is true; whatever is last is adulterate." Faber says: "If a doctrine totally unknown to the primitive Church, which received her theology immediately from the hands of the disciples of the apostles, springs up in a subsequent age, such doctrine stands on its very front with the brand of human invention." These statements have been used by Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists against PostMillennialism. They are equally true when used by us against Pre-TribulationRapturism; for this doctrine, like Post-Millennialism, is "new", decidedly "new", being only a century old, and it was "totally unknown to the primitive Church".12

12 In the use of wrested Scripture with which these respective doctrines are supported (?), there is also a strong resemblance between Christian Science and Pre-TribulationRapturism; and as Christian Science, with its practical denial of the need of the Atonement, jeopardizes the salvation of its adherents, so likewise, later, when the adherents of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism shall find themselves plunged unprepared, and perhaps despairing, into the Tribulation, the possibility will be great that many of them will be included with those of whom Jesus said, "Because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold." Matt. 24:12.

TRIBULATION - A PUNISHMENT FOR THE SINNER, BUT A PRIVILEGE FOR THE SAINT
I am afraid of the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church because it is in accord with the desires of the human heart. The natural inclination is to "follow the line of least resistance", to avoid trial, trouble, suffering, etc., while the general teaching of the New Testament is that the spiritual man must not follow this line. Through much tribulation we are to enter the kingdom, Acts 14:22. Through suffering we are to be perfected, 1 Peter 5:10. These are but two of scores of such scriptures. And the inference to be drawn from all of them is that the greater the tribulation endured, the more abundant the entrance into the kingdom; the greater the suffering patiently borne, the greater the degree of perfection attained. Yet when it comes to the Great Tribulation, there is, on the part of Pre-Millennialists, an almost universal shrinking from it, not only because of its unparalleled horrors, but also and principally because, as is commonly taught, for one to be found in it will be prima facie evidence of unfaithfulness, instead of the recognition of it as an opportunity for greater achievements in "the good fight of faith", and therefore for the obtaining of still greater rewards. It is to this unfortunate attitude of mind that I attribute what seems to me to be "wresting" of many Scriptural passages bearing upon this subject, by reading into them meanings which do not belong there. In other words, it looks to me as though the desire is the father of the doctrine, rather than that its foundation is found in the Scriptures. Let us beware lest we believe a thing to be so because we want it to be so, for such a course contains grave possibilities. Can error be beneficial? The instant I ask the question, methinks I hear a thousand voices reply as one, "No!" Yet I dare to say that if the belief that the Church will go into the Tribulation is an error, it is a beneficial error. God's Answer to Jeremiah Let me explain. Jeremiah the prophet had fallen upon troublous times and in his perplexity, even as the Psalmist under similar circumstances had done (Psalm 73:16,17), he went to the Lord with a question and received from Him an answer. Said Jeremiah: "Righteous art Thou, O Lord, when I plead with Thee; yet let me talk ["reason the case", margin] with Thee of Thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?" And after he had spoken these and other words, the Lord replied, "If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? And if in the land of peace, wherein thou trusted, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?" Jer. 12:1-5. Then God went on to show that compared with the trials Jeremiah had already experienced and which had caused him such perplexity, the trials he was yet to pass through were as horses to footmen, as the rushing torrent of the Jordan in flood to the gentle stream of the summer fields. How To Prepare for the Great Tribulation In view of this warning, what would be the wise thing for Jeremiah to do? If some day he must race with "horses", would it not behoove him to continue to train with "footmen"? If in the future he must breast "the swelling of Jordan", would it

not be the part of wisdom for him first to get all the swimming practice possible in other rivers less deep and rapid? Certainly it would. Let us apply this to the subject under discussion. A man complains to God of the comparatively trifling trials he is called upon to endure in the comparatively peaceful present. And God replies: "In proportion to what lies before you ere Jesus comes, they are as running 'footmen' compared with speeding 'horses', as a rippling river compared with a rushing freshet'. Therefore it behooves you to see in these footmen and rippling river trials which you are now enduring only the necessary training for the future, where greater 'horses' and 'swelling Jordan' trials await you, but which, being overcome, are to result in victories as great as themselves and in prizes of like proportions." Acting upon this suggestion, the man returns to the race-track of trial, first stripping himself of every superfluous garment and weight, Heb. 12:1. The starter, God, knowing the extent of his ability, selects for him an opponent almost but not quite his equal in strength and endurance. This latter fact our friend does not know, but supposing his competitor to be at least as fleet footed as himself, he puts forth every effort to win, and passes the goal a not too easy winner but fully compensated for his effort by the exultation of victory, the pleasure of the applause, and the value of the reward. In the next race a somewhat fleeter runner is assigned to compete with him, and only by increased effort is he able to win. And so race after race he runs, always with a swifter runner and always with his opponent crowding him close to the very end of the race. At last the swiftest footman is matched against him, and again he wins, but by a dangerously close margin. The many races with their necessarily strenuous efforts have steeled his muscles, the much applause has gratified his soul, the great rewards have delighted his heart, and the many victories have fired his ambition, so that he actually desires more of the very things he once dreaded and complained about. He desires to be "more than conqueror", and he is ever mindful of the statement once made to him that ere he can be that, ere he can receive the greatest of all prizes, he, a footman, must successfully "contend with horses". To continue racing with and defeating "footmen" is to be a conqueror, certainly, but not a "more than conqueror", Romans 8:37. To be the latter he must win in a race that is apparently impossible to win, inasmuch as not "footmen" but "horses" are to be outstripped. Remembering that only by a few inches had he come in ahead of the swiftest of all his "footmen" competitors, thus proving that he is not yet swift and strong enough to "contend with horses", again and again he challenges the last footman to a race; for he realizes that he needs training for some time to come if ever he is to defeat "horses" and receive the "more than conqueror" prize. Often he runs, and the distance between him and his fellow-runner at the winning-post slowly increases from inches to feet, from feet to yards, and from yards to rods; not because the other man is less fleet of foot, but because he himself is more swift and strong. At last the day comes when he can say to the starter, not boastfully, but confidently: "I am a candidate for the 'more than conqueror' prize. Bring on the 'horses'. By the grace of God I am what I am. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me; for I am strengthened with all might, according to His glorious

power, unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness." 1 Cor. 15:10; Phil. 4:13; Col. 1:11. The "horses" are brought to the starting line where the well-trained footman quietly awaits them. The feelings of the "witnesses", Heb. 12:1, famous runners all, are too intense for words as they look at this splendid runner who is about to attempt the apparently impossible; to run a race more remarkable even than those they once ran. Some would pity him were it not for the quiet smile on his face, the confident look in his eyes, and the alert attitude of his whole body, all of which make them hope for his success. Verily he is like the sun which, as the Psalmist says, "rejoices as a strong man to run a race", Psalm 19:5. Suddenly the silence is shattered by the sharp cry of the starter, "Go!" and the competitors are off. As the "horses" thunder down the track they completely surround the footman, before, behind, on each side, threatening at every moment to trample his puny form under their heavy hoofs, but ever and anon the breathless crowd catches a glimpse of his lithe figure as he bounds lightly and noiselessly in their midst. The unspoken question in every mind is, "Will he win? Will he win?"

On the "horses" sweep, eyes flashing, muscles straining, manes streaming, and the impact of their pounding hoofs shaking the ground. But as they near the goal the spectators nearest it notice that their breathing is becoming labored and their speed less. Suddenly the footman leaps to the front and, in spite of the quickly renewed effort of the "horses" to overtake him, in a few seconds he has passed the post--a winner. And with a common impulse the "witnesses" leap to their feet and unite in the frenzied shout, "More than conqueror! More than conqueror! MORE THAN CONQUEROR!" Yes, he has won, but why and how? Because he stopped complaining about his "footmen" trials, quit seeking to avoid them, and began instead to make use of them as "pace-makers" for an "even as" race, the prize for which was to be an "even as" throne and kingdom, Rev. 3:21. We need not follow out at length the other figure, for the principle is the same. If a man is ever to overcome "the swelling of Jordan" trial of the Great Tribulation, he must get his training for the supreme effort in the various smaller rivers of trial that flow across his path as he journeys on toward that crowning test. Being rowed across these obstacles will leave him utterly unfit, lacking strength and skill, to breast the muddy torrent of Jordan in flood. By utilizing these waters as places in which to practice swimming, when he reaches "the swelling of Jordan" he will plunge into it; not whimperingly and unwillingly, but with rejoicing, even as James admonishes. "Count it all joy when ye fall into various trials. Knowing this, that the trying of your faith works patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking nothing....Blessed is the man that endures temptation [trial]: for when he is [sufficiently] tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him." James 1:2-4,12. If we "count it joy" to "fall into [the] various [small rivers of] trial" of this present "land of peace"--because they afford excellent opportunities for swimming practice--and avail ourselves of these opportunities to become expert swimmers, we shall be able to count it the greatest joy of all to plunge into "the swelling of Jordan" of the Great Tribulation because of the unparalleled opportunity it will afford us of proving the grace and keeping power of God, and of

demonstrating the literal truth of the ninety-first Psalm, "He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shalt thou trust. Thou shalt not be afraid for the [Zeppelin] terror by night; nor for the arrow [of war] that flies by day; nor for the pestilence that walks in darkness; nor for the destruction [of famine] that wastes at noon-day. A thousand shall fall at thy side [by war, pestilence, famine, anarchy, flood, storm, earthquake, and many other agencies], and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder; the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample underfoot." There are twenty-four such promises in the Psalm. But their fulfilment depends upon faith. If the greater the stumbling-stone the greater the stepping-stone, if the greater the curse the greater the blessing, if the greater the trial of faith the greater the increase of faith, if our victories are equal to our battles and our rewards are to be in proportion to our victories, why should we be so anxious to be taken away before the coming of that fiercest battle, that greatest stumblingstone, that worst curse and that most severe trial of faith--the Great Tribulation--unless it be that God has clearly revealed His will and purpose to remove us before it shall come? If, beyond the shadow of a doubt, God has revealed that it is His purpose to do this, then with all my heart I say, "The will of the Lord be done!" But has He done so? Post-Tribulation-Rapturism Beneficial Even If It Should Prove To Be Erroneous Suppose a man believes that he is to enter the Great Tribulation, that that great trial of faith is to be to his present trials as "horses" are to "footmen", as "the swelling of Jordan" is to the quiet rivers of "the land of peace". With the end in view that he may fully overcome at that time, he goes into training as suggested; and will not the training benefit him? Certainly it will. Suppose, then, that when--strong in faith and full of courage because of his training--he is prepared to undergo that ordeal, he suddenly learns that he is not to face it, that the prize is to be his without competing for it. Will the information harm him? Assuredly not. It may be a pleasant surprise to him, it certainly cannot injure him. If, on the other hand, should the popular belief be an error that the Church will not go into the Great Tribulation except as a result of unfaithfulness, and thousands of God's children should find themselves slipping down the bank into "the swelling of Jordan" with little or no knowledge of the art of swimming, and should find themselves surrounded with the "horses" trials of the Great Tribulation without having faithfully and successfully trained with the "footmen" trials of this present time for that great test, what a frightful error it will prove to be! Confused by their surroundings--awful only to the unprepared--and discouraged by the belief that they are in them because of their own unfaithfulness, what chance will they have of winning? Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Injurious Even If True The teaching that the Church will be taken away before the Great Tribulation is now injurious to faith in that it implants and fosters the idea that there is no need to develop faith to the supreme point, because that faith will not be called upon to endure the supreme test. In other words, its tendency is to lull people to

sleep. Fortunately, this tendency is counteracted in some quarters to a considerable extent by the teaching of some of its advocates that unless faithful-to how great a degree is not stated by them--professed believers then living will be left behind to go into the Tribulation when the faithful members are taken away. But at its best, it does not tend to the greatest exercise and development of faith, and many Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists deny that any believers will be left behind no matter how low their spiritual state. On the other hand, the teaching that the Church will not to taken away before the Great Tribulation is now beneficial to faith, in that it tends to encourage believers to make use of their present trials in order to increase faith by exercising it, with the view to its complete development in readiness for the future great crisis of the age. If this unpopular teaching is an error, it is a beneficial error, for at the worst it can bring to its believers only the possibly pleasant surprise that they are not to go into the great contest for which they have been preparing. My natural tendencies and desires incline me toward the popular doctrine because it is along the line of least resistance, but my spiritual tendencies and desires incline me toward the unpopular doctrine because it is "the way of the cross", which is the way to a crown. Verily, "the spirit indeed is willing (to go the way of suffering and trial), but the flesh is weak". And, as already remarked, it may be that many are expecting certain things to happen because they want them to happen; and their natural desires may be influencing their interpretation of Scripture. Such people seem to forget that the flood which destroyed sinners merely lifted saints nearer to heaven. An Honor To Be In The Great Tribulation Concerning this view, a scholarly man of God has said:
Others again, while owning the approach of a coming struggle with the powers of darkness, tell us with all confidence (though Scripture positively teaches the reverse) that the saints of God are to be taken from the earth before the hour of truth's last conflict comes, and would have us believe that it is a blessing to be deprived of the honor of fighting in that last great battlefield where soldiership for Christ is most needed, and triumph is most glorious. They seem to count it no honor to be counted among that faithful few who will at that time "overcome because of the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, and will not love their lives unto death." Rev. 12:11.

A Desire to Shirk Suffering a Sign of Degeneracy Robert Cameron puts it thus in his book, "Scriptural Truth About the Lord's Return":
This extra-scriptural theory [that the less spiritual believers will be left to go through the Great Tribulation] leaves room to account for the presence of some saints who are most surely mentioned as having been on earth during the day of the Antichrist in tribulation under his persecution. Rev. 7:14, and chapters 13,14. If some saints pass through the Tribulation, why may not all saints have the honor of witnessing for Christ at that hour of the triumph of Satan and the Trying Tribulation? It must always be remembered, "the path of sorrow, and that path alone, leads to the land where sorrow in unknown". Through "much tribulation" all must enter into the kingdom of God. John 16:33; Acts 14:22. Everywhere in the New Testament it is taught that to suffer for Christ is one of the highest honors Christians can have bestowed upon them. A desire to shirk suffering for Christ is a sign of degeneracy. At the close of this dispensation, it will still be counted an

honor to suffer shame for our adorable Lord.

Page 18.

The Church To Suffer Satanic Persecutions, Not Divine Judgments The same writer says:
Tribulation the Church has always had, and it will yet pass through the season of tribulation that will never again be equalled: but the Church never has known, and it never can know, what the judgment of God's wrath may mean. There is nothing in the Great Tribulation yet to come, that is essentially different from the tribulation of the past, except the intensity and extent of its sufferings....The Church experienced, at the beginning of her existence, great persecution and suffering, and...this suffering will be intensified at the end.

The Church and Israel Contemporary at Beginning and End of Age Then he makes the following important point:
The Jews, in a corporate capacity, existed contemporaneously, for a short time, with the Church at the beginning of this dispensation; and the same will be true, for another brief period, at the close of its career. The Church was on earth when Israel had her "days of vengeance", and the Church will be on earth again when Israel shall have her "time of trouble". This is a most important point to see. The Parousia, or Coming of Christ, is always placed at the end of the time of trouble in the Scriptures. Matt. 24:29. By what right may we transfer it to the beginning?

God Will Not Favor the Last Generation And closes with this:
It is sometimes objected that God loves His Church too well to permit it to pass through the Great Tribulation. But is it so? We may judge the future from the past. Did He interfere when bitter persecution came from the Jews who put our Lord to death and sought to crush His followers at the beginning? Did His love interfere when untold suffering came from the heathen rulers of Pagan Rome? Did He interfere during the long years of persecution and torture that were endured at the hands of Papal Rome? Has He interfered to stay the hands of cruel fiends who have outraged and murdered Armenian saints during the past four or five centuries? Were not missionaries and their converts dear to the heart of God and did He take them out of the massacres that attended the Boxer outrage in China? God is love, and He loved the Church of these past days, but in spite of His love, He left the saints to suffer from the awful persecutions of professed Christians, of unbelieving Jews, of brutal pagan rulers, of fiendish barbarians, and of heartless bigots. Now, what reason have we to expect Him to change His methods in the future?

Which Interpretation Savors of Cowardice and Which of Courage? And this from S. P. Tregelles (who says much more like it):
There are, indeed, some who say, "An expectation of times of extreme peril before the Lord's coming, times of great tribulation, during which Christ's people would have to wait on this earth, would be no hope to me--it would only lead to discouragement and dismay: I want that which would animate my soul; no hope that is not of such a character would produce in me an emotion of present joy, or give me sustained comfort."

Such reasoners go on sometimes to say, that even though proof of revealed events to occur before the coming of Christ is logically correct, although no flaw or fallacy can be detected in the arguments, yet because the result is such as cannot be accepted, therefore there must be a defect somewhere.1 Therefore in meeting such thoughts, it is well that it is on testimony that we rest as to this truth; not on a process of reasoning, but on the inspired declarations which bear on this point on every side.

Not on the Intervening Darkness But on the Brightness Beyond"

But will the expectations produce no animating hope? Will there be no emotions according to God from the thought of seeing Christ in His glory, and being like Him at His coming? It is not on the intervening darkness that we have to rest, but on the brightness beyond; that is our hope, and it is made known to us that we may understand our place of service and patience while waiting for the coming of our Lord, by which all trial shall be for ever ended. However hopeless it may be to meet the arguments of idealistic visionaries, who assume a conclusion, and refuse to submit to opposing Scripture testimony, yet for others it is well distinctly to show that the hope of Christ's coming was given to be the sustainment and consolation in intervening trial. So far from its being a thing to cast down or depress, it is gracious in the Lord to have told us what to expect in the path of the Church up to the time of the appearing of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle, contemplates Christians as "begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1.3), while waiting for the "inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." (1.4,5.) Meanwhile, such may be "in heaviness, through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honor, and glory at the appearing [revelation] of Jesus Christ." (7.) The trial may be borne, the temptations may be endured, as knowing what the blessing shall be at the revelation of the Lord himself. And what is the practical exhortation to those thus set in the place of present trial: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind; be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." (13.) This, then, is the point at which we are to look beyond all suffering, and this is the truth, as applied to our souls by the Spirit of God, which is to give us present sustainment. But, lest any should imagine that the Church should be exempt from special and peculiar times of suffering, as well as that which falls on men in general, he says, "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that when His glory shall be revealed,2 ye may be glad also with 1 Such persons often escape from the bearing of Scriptures on their consciences by calling them "Jewish." But let such be asked, Do you mean unbelieving-Jewish, or "ChristianJewish?" If they say the latter, then must the persons to whom such Scriptures apply be part of the Church, as essentially so as the Ephesians were; if they say the former, then it may be asked them, How can unconverted Jews use any part of the New Testament at all? If an expression be adopted, and used without explanation or definition it may then afford a shelter for any ambiguity or fallacy. 2 It will be observed that Mr. Tregelles stresses the fact that these promised blessings are to be given at the "appearing" of the Lord Jesus Christ. His reason for doing so is at once apparent to the Bible scholar, but not the average reader. The Greek word here used by Peter is "Apocalypse". The Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists teach that Christ's coming will occur in "two stages". The "first stage", they say, will be the "Parousia" before the Tribulation. This, they way, will be a "secret coming". At the end of the Tribulation Christ will, they allege, have an "open coming", which is known as His "Epiphaneia" and "Apocalypse". By stressing this word "Apocalypse" or "appearing" or

exceeding joy." (4.12,13.) "Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their souls unto Him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." (19.) So also as to service. To those who feed the flock of God, taking oversight, the promise is, "When the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away." (5.4.) Pages 104-107 "The Hope of Christ's Coming".

Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism Illogical Many years after the foregoing was written, I came across the following on this subject by Rev. Henry W. Frost on page 64 of his book, "Matthew Twenty-four and The Revelation:"
The principle of Christians facing the Antichrist and enduring his persecutions is written large in the Scriptures, for it is made very clear therein that the Church has ever stood before and in opposition to antichrists (1 John 2:18-22; 4:3; 2 John 7), and has ever suffered persecution from systems ruled by such (Matt. 2:16-18; 5:11,44; 23:34; John 15:20; 19:13-18; Acts 8:1; 11:19; 13:50; 2 Tim. 3:12). For the Church therefore to go into the days of the Antichrist and to be called upon to endure his hatred and harassments, is but for her to pass from one phase of an experience into another, the difference being, not in kind, but in degree. Moreover, the fact that Christians have faced past antichrists and suffered because of them, presents strong, presumptive evidence that they will face the future Antichrist and suffer because of him. Whatever may be true in regard to this last, it is unmistakably plain that suffering on the part of the Church because of antichrists is not inconsistent, but rather, wholly harmonious with the thought and fact of God's most tender love. The question of divine love permitting such suffering, therefore, is not one which needs to be considered. The only question which we are called upon to decide is this, whether or not the saints going through the Tribulation is a divine revelation.

And on page 271 of the same book, Mr. Frost says:

The thought is often expressed and still more often felt that God loves His saints too well to allow them to stand face to face with the Antichrist and to pass through the Great Tribulation. If Scripture and experience teach this, all controversy, of course, is immediately ended. But do they? Did God love Christ too well to forbid His standing before His antichrist and passing through His great tribulation? Or, if it is said--as it may most justly be said--that Christ was unique in His experiences, did God love Peter, James, John and Paul too well for this; or the apostolic Church; or the Church of the Reformation; or the more modern Christians of Armenia, Madagascar, and China? It is a historical fact that the Church, from apostolic days to the present, has always faced antichrists (1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7) and has frequently passed through periods of tribulation (Rev. 2:10,13; 3:10); and the Scripture makes it plain that this will be her appointed portion to the end of her earthly pilgrimage (Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:35-39; 1 Thes. 3:4). There is no occasion then, for surprise on the part of the Church when an antichrist arises and persecution comes. As a matter of fact, there is more need for surprise when there are no antichrists and persecutions. Indeed, this latter is so true, that Christians may well question, in times of universal quiet and peace, if things are with them spiritually just what they ought to be. For suffering, not comfort, is the appointed lot of God's heritage, even as Paul said: "For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Rom. 8:36); and again, "We must through much tribulation [or, many tribulations, R.V.] enter into the kingdom of God" "revelation", Mr. Tregelles is asking, in effect, how the Church is to receive these promised blessings at the Apocalypse of Christ after the Tribulation when, as the PreTribulation-Rapturists teach, she received them at the Parousia of Christ before the Tribulation. See the three chapters on "Parousia, "Epiphaneia", and "Apocalypse", in Volume 2, in which I have gone into this subject in detail.

(Acts 14:22). The fact of the matter is, the dealing of God with His saints and especially their dealing with Him, during about a hundred years past, have brought His people to some seriously false conclusions concerning suffering. On God's side, there has been granted to the modern Church a breathing space in order that there might be ample and unhindered opportunity to pass through divinely opened doors. But on the side of the saints, the vast majority of these have gladly accepted the breathing space thus given, and then have refused to pass through the opened door. In time, therefore, these saints have come to conclude that the prosperity of quiet and easement from suffering is not only their lot, but also their right. What a shock it was in 1900, therefore, when the Boxer movement broke over their cherished kith and kin like a devastating storm!3 In those days of sorrow, many a soul secretly demanded to know of God what He was doing. His only answer was, the allowance of further torture and death--till the storm had passed. And yet since then He has given another and even more dreadful answer to questioning souls, as France, Germany, Turkey and Armenia bear witness. It is significant, in the letter to the Philadephian church, that He who says, He opens and no man shuts, also says, He shuts and no man opens, and that this same One immediately adds that there is an hour of trial which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth (3:7-10). It is evident that the Hand that bears the key of David and which turned for a time the usual of suffering into the unusual of peace, will in coming days turn the unusual of peace into the usual of suffering; for accumulating evidence indicates that the Church which had torment in the old days but has sat at east in the new, will be called upon to re-enter blood-stained paths and follow the Lamb withersoever He goes. It may not be regarded as exegesis, but it may be reckoned as analogy, that Christ thrice asked Peter, who was appointed unto suffering and death, if he loved Him, and that, so far, He has asked Christians at large this same question but twice, once in apostolic days and once in Reformation, which suggests that the third time is yet to be. And as Peter confessed his Lord three times over and confirmed, finally, his words by willing death, so the Church has said twice and will say thrice, "Lord, Thou knowest all things: Thou knowest that I love Thee!" and they too will willingly seal their covenant-troth by poured-forth blood.

As will be observed, Brother Frost wrote those words (his book was issued in 1924) before the God-hating, Christ-rejecting, Bible-despising government of recently so-called "Holy Russia" (so-called because of the alleged Christian piety of its people) began its church- and Bible-destroying and saint-persecuting work as a part of its avowed purpose to make that great country one hundred percent atheistic and antichristian (something which no other government in all the history of the world had ever attempted to do). If one may believe one-half the stories which have come out of Soviet Russia, then many of the saints there have already had to face as "great tribulation" as any saint will be called upon to face during the Great Tribulation itself. Yet as recently as ten years ago it was not thought possible, except by prophetic students, that such a condition could have obtained in any so-called civilized country in these days. Now we know that active propaganda is threatening to make that condition universal, and that quickly. Also dictatorship, a necessary preliminary to the appearance of the Antichrist, is "in the air" everywhere, and is actually in existence in some of the great nations-Russia, Italy, Germany, etc., and, in a modified way, even in these United States. If Brother Frost had been writing his book at the time I am adding this note, July, 1933, he would have had very much more reason than he had in 1924 for saying "accumulating evidence indicates that the Church, which had torment in the old days but has sat at ease in the new, will be called upon to re-enter blood-stained paths and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes". What a "Fool's Paradise" Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism is!
3 Brother Frost was at that time connected with the China Inland Mission, as Home Director, so he knows whereof he writes.

IS NOT THE TRIBULATION, INSOFAR AS IT WILL AFFECT THE SAINTS, GREATLY EXAGGERATED?
When Colonel Goethals had been commissioned by the United States government to build the Panama Canal, he went to look over the ground. He knew that deLesseps, with all the resources of the French government behind him, had failed to perform the task. And, viewed as a whole, the obstacles seemed innumerable, the difficulties insurmountable, the task impossible. While so thinking, it suddenly occurred to the almost discouraged colonel that he was making a mistake in viewing the job as a whole. So he began to consider one detail of it at a time, and soon realized that while as a whole the work seemed impossible, each detail in itself was quite possible; and he knew that the sum total of the finished details would mean the completed Panama Canal. So detail by detail the colonel planned the work, and detail by detail it was completed. In this same way we should view the coming Great Tribulation. As a whole it will be a colossal, unparalleled thing. Yet it will continue only one hundred and eighty weeks, or "forty and two months". And as each of its sunsets shall come, the saints may well say, "We are one day nearer the end", and then make a mental calculation of the ever-decreasing number of days that are to follow of the "thousand two hundred and threescore days" allotted to it. There will be no "hope deferred" to "make the heart sick" in those days, for the saints will then know the very day and perhaps the very hour when the Lord will appear. Thus hope will be kept burning brightly, even the "blessed hope" of the coming of our Lord to bring to His "troubled" Church that "rest" which will be all the more blessed by reason of its contrast with the "persecutions and tribulations" which will have preceded it.4 Most people think of the Great Tribulation as a period of unparalleled suffering, and in a sense it will be. That is to say, it will be a period of unparalleled suffering in that it will be suffering on an international or worldwide scale. But it does not necessarily follow from this that it will be a period of unparalleled suffering for the individual believer. Even if martyrdom should be by torture during the Tribulation, it is doubtful if all the devil-controlled human beings then in existence, including the Antichrist himself, could devise more diabolical forms of death than have been already inflicted upon millions of God's saints during this age, some of them in our own generation. And if saints of the past have so died, why should not saints of the future also so die? But it is significant that the only form of martyrdom mentioned in connection with the Tribulation is beheading,5 which is one of the quickest and least painful
4 "We glory in you...for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, WHEN THE LORD JESUS SHALL BE REVEALED FROM HEAVEN WITH HIS MIGHTY ANGELS, IN FLAMING FIRE TAKING VENGEANCE ON THEM THAT KNOW NOT GOD, AND THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST." 2 Thessalonians 1:4-8. Here Paul shows that the "rest" for the saints is not to come until "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed [apocalypsed] from heaven", etc., which is the revealing or apocalypsing pictured in Revelation 19:11-21, and foretold by Jesus in Matthew 24:27-31. This passage will be carefully examined in the chapter on "What Did Paul Teach the Thessalonians?" (Part Two), in Volume 2. 5 "I saw thrones, and they that sat upon them, and judgment [rulership] was given unto

modes of execution, seeing that it results in instantaneous death (especially when inflicted by the guillotine, as most likely will be the case, following the example set during that miniature Tribulation, the "Reign of Terror" during the time of the French Commune).6 So, apparently the Lord will temper the Tribulation persecutions for His saints in this way, even while He will be increasing the Tribulation punishments for their enemies.7 But in view of the fact that the greater the trial endured the greater the blessing obtained, this tempering of suffering for the Tribulation saints could
them: and I saw the souls of them THAT WERE BEHEADED for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4. Notice the similarity between the reason given for this beheading and the statements made in the following passages. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was [a prisoner] in the isle that is called Patmos, FOR THE WORD OF GOD, AND FOR THE TESTIMONY [teaching] OF JESUS CHRIST." Revelation 1:9. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain FOR THE WORD OF GOD, AND FOR THE TESTIMONY [teaching] WHICH THEY HELD." Revelation 6:9. "And the dragon [Satan] was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, WHICH KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS [word] OF GOD, AND HAVE THE TESTIMONY [teaching] OF JESUS CHRIST." Revelation 12:17. "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they THAT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS [word] OF GOD, AND THE FAITH [teaching] OF JESUS. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord [by martyrdom, for refusing to accept the mark of the beast, see context] from HENCEFORTH [from the time the mark of the beast edict is issued]. Revelation 14:12,13. Taken together, these passages indicate quite strongly that during the Tribulation the principal if not the only mode of martyrdom will be by beheading. 6 As a lad, I went to see the original guillotine in Madame Tussaud's Exhibition in London, the one used during "the Reign of Terror" in France, my home then being near that city. When first I saw a printers' paper cutter, which was when I entered the printing business in this country, immediately I noticed its resemblance to the guillotine, so was not surprised to hear, when later visiting a printing establishment in England, the proprietor refer to his "cutter" as "the guillotine"--from which I inferred that that was the name given to a paper cutter by all British printers. As an illustration of the physical painlessness of death by beheading with a guillotine: A printer in this city, at work at his "power cutter"--the smaller ones are operated by hand--turned to speak to an office girl, who, not realizing the danger of so doing, moved the starting lever of the machine, and the razor-edged blade came down. Turning again to see if any damage had been caused to the paper he had been cutting, the man was astounded to see the severed fingers of his right hand lying across the cutter stick"--a narrow strip of hard wood which receives the edge of the descending blade after it passes through the pile of paper, thus preventing damage to the blade. When turning to speak to the girl, he had inadvertantly left his hand resting across the cutting stick, and the descending blade had sliced them off so quickly and easily that evidently he had not felt the equivalent of a pin prick when the accident happened. 7 I have said that the Tribulation sufferings will be unparalleled in the sense that they will be international or worldwide; that so far as they will affect the individual saints, they will not be unparalleled. But there will be an individual sense also in which the Tribulation sufferings will be without parallel, for God will then inflict such torments upon His enemies at times as would be sufficient, normally, to cause death, yet will miraculously prevent their obtaining relief from their sufferings in death. "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit....And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt...but only those men which have not the seal of God in

hardly be looked upon as an unmixed blessing. Yet if the Lord wills so to plan it, none of us would feel inclined to question His wisdom, for "He is too wise to err, too good to be unkind". Still, one can hardly help picturing two one who had died by beheading, another who had how much the former must feel like envying the war, envies his comrade who bears the marks of bears the mark of but one slight wound). saints together after those days-been tortured to death--and thinking latter (even as a soldier, after a many severe wounds while he himself

Yet it may be that just as a soldier seriously wounded in some nameless skirmish envies the soldier who passed unscathed through or was only slightly wounded in some great historic battle (especially if that one had greatly distinguished himself by some conspicuous act of bravery), so may one saint, done to death by torture in some inconspicuous persecution, have cause to envy his fellow saint who came unharmed out of or was painlessly beheaded in the Great Tribulation. "I lost my arm at Waterloo", some old "Chelsea" veteran might have proudly remarked during my childhood to a fellow inmate of that West London home for aged and disabled British war veterans; and then have asked, "Where did you lose your arm and leg?" And the almost "sheepish" answer might have been: "I lost them in a little fight near_____." So the battle wounds themselves, severe or slight, may not be so much the criteria in the future as the fact that the wounds were received in a certain place, at a certain time, and under certain circumstances.

their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he strikes a man. And in those days shall men seek death [by suicide], and shall not find it; and shall desire to die [a natural death in order to be delivered from their suffering] and death shall flee from them." Revelation 9:1-6. Later similar and perhaps equally severe suffering will befall them. "I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul (creature) died in the sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord...because Thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy (deserve it).... And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give Him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat [the throne or capital] of the beast [the Antichrist]; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds." Revelation 16:1-11. This effectually disposes of the argument that the Church cannot go into the Tribulation because the Tribulation is a judgment period, and the Church is not to enter into judgment; for the saints then on the earth are to be protected against such judgments, even as the Israelites, in the type were protected against the judgments which fell upon Pharaoh and his Egyptian subjects. This fact, so clearly shown, cannot be too strongly stressed. How light, comparatively speaking, even at their worst, will be the "persecutions and tribulations" of the saints of those days, 2 Thessalonians 1:4, compared with the "tribulation" of the wicked! 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

It is significant that of those who will be beheaded during the Tribulation because they "keep the commandments of God and the faith (doctrine) of Jesus", it is written, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord (by martyrdom) from henceforth." Revelation 14:12,13. And it is equally significant that we read further concerning them: "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4. So these comparatively painless martyrdoms in this "place" (the absolutely devil-controlled earth, Revelation 12:7-17), at this "time" (the "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be [again]", Matthew 24:21), and under these "circumstances" (when unparalleled judgments are in the earth), would seem to be accounted as just as deserving of reward as the more painful martyrdoms of other times, and perhaps more so. And in view of the fact that these various forms of martyrdom were not selected by the victims themselves but were thrust upon them by others, who shall say that such a decision would not be a just one? Martyrdom itself is always the result of deliberate choice on the part of the victim. The method of martyrdom may be wholly accidental. That is to say, there have been "fashions" in methods of martyrdom. Because Huss and Cranmer lived when and there they did, they were burned at the stake. Because certain others lived when and where they did, they were delivered to the lions. But while there have been and may yet be "fashions" in methods of martyrdom, there has always been and will be "choice" in the matter of martyrdom; and it is the "choice" which counts.8 And so when one "fights the good fight of faith" to the extent that it is given him to fight it, and "makes the supreme sacrifice" in whatever way it chances him to make it, if at all, the end will be glory.9
8 Perhaps an explanation is needed here. In The Latter Rain Evangel, under the heading, "Tibet Yields Her First Martyr", there appeared a reference to the murder of William E. Simpson, a young missionary, who, with a companion, was killed by bandits while driving a motor truck, the object of the killing being robbery. In no way can this estimable young man's violent death be accounted martyrdom, for his religious convictions did not enter into the matter at all, since those bandits were out to kill and rob, regardless of the race, creed, or occupation of their victims. So William Simpson had no choice in the matter, for he was shot and killed instantly from ambush, precisely as thousands of ungodly men have been shot and killed. I never met this young man, the devoted son of a devoted missionary father, whom I have known and admired for many years, but I have heard enough about him to believe that he will have "an abundant entrance" into the kingdom, 2 Peter 1:11, as an unusually "good and faithful servant", and I quite believe that he would willingly have suffered martyrdom had occasion required. But the fact is, he did not die a martyr's death any more than did another highly esteemed missionary acquaintance of mine, a fellow-missionary of this young man's father, who was accidentally shot and killed while on the field. Of course, religious convictions sent these men to the foreign field where they met death by violence, and thus were remotely responsible for what happened; but true martyrdom involves death by violence for the sake of religious convictions: a violent death which might have been avoided by recantation. Thus the element of choice is vital to it. The question may be asked: What about such a slaughter of professed Christians as that which occurred in France on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1572, when, at a given signal, death was meted out to the Huguenots without opportunity being given them to recant? In that case, politics and religion were so inextricably mixed that only He who knows the hearts of men knows how many of the victims of that massacre were true martyrs; for, presumably, some of those victims might have recanted if given the opportunity to do so, because almost certainly there were those among them who were Christians only in a nominal sense. 9 I say, "and makes the supreme sacrifice in whatever way it chances him to make it, if at

What an honor it will be when, in the kingdom, one shall be pointed out as "A Great Tribulation Saint"! Yet if the "the-unready-will-be-left-behind" doctrine which is taught by the greater part of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists were Scriptural, the reverse of this would be true. Should martyrdom be one's portion in those days, even martyrdom by torture, there can never be more than one second of suffering at a time. And suffering can proceed only to a certain point, for we are so constituted physically that at a certain point suffering ceases, no matter what is being done to one. At that point either numbness of nerves, insensibility, or death ensues. A certain brilliant Frenchman was being "broken on the wheel". As each blow fell, a bone of an arm or a leg was broken. Naturally the victim winced under the blows--at first. However, only a few blows had fallen when he smiled up into the face of the executioner and remarked that he no longer felt the blows. Why? Because Nature had applied her ansthetic, and his nerves were too numbed to feel further pain. It is declared on good authority that while being tortured by the Indians, by fire and other means, men would sometimes fall asleep, and could with difficulty be aroused. This would not occur in the case of one burned in the usual way at the stake, since in such a case death would ensue too quickly to permit it. But often, soon after people have been fatally burned by accident, all pain ceases, and death is then painless. In fact, the natural cessation of all pain in such cases always indicates a fatal termination. After having been attacked by a lion, whose great jaws crushed his shoulder, David Livingstone was shaken by the huge "cat" precisely as a mouse is shaken by a domestic cat. He tells us that immediately there crept over him a delicious languor which obliterated both pain and fear. When but a lad, with an arm crushed under the wheels of a flat car (which splintered the bones into fragments from the size of a pinhead up and tore off much of the muscle, besides inflicting other injuries), refusing proffered assistance I
all", because in later chapters of these volumes I shall show "a more excellent way" even than martyrdom. One may have faith enough to suffer death for Christ's sake by "the mouths of lions", but Daniel had faith enough to "stop the mouths of lions". Others may have faith enough to suffer death for Christ's sake by "fire", but the three Hebrew children had faith enough to "quench the violence of fire". Hebrews 11:33,34. In this chapter I am dealing more especially with Tribulation martyrdom because it is of martyrdom that people usually think when in their minds they associate believers with the Tribulation. But there is a far "better thing" than martyrdom, and a far greater reward than a martyr's crown. And, as I understand, and later shall seek to show, the Great Tribulation will afford the opportunity to obtain that far "better thing" and a part of that far greater reward. Martyrdom will necessitate resurrection, and Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." 1 Corinthians 15:41,42. The differing glories of the "stars" accurately describe the varying positions which the resurrected saints will occupy as "lords" in the kingdom; the martyrs all being stars of the first magnitude, no doubt. But there will also be a "moon" glory, that of the "Queen" or "Bride", which will be greater than the glory even of the brightest star; and a "sun" or "kings" glory, greater even than that of the moon at the full. These various rulership glories, especially those of the "sun" and the "moon", will be dealt with in other chapters in later volumes under various headings, "Degrees of Faith, Attainment, and Reward", "The Sunclothed Woman", "The Manchild", "The Two Flowers" and "The Bride, the Lamb's Wife", etc.

was able to walk a mile, and that without any sense of pain, until, reaching home, weakness from loss of blood made it necessary for my mother to assist me into the house.10 So Nature often renders assistance in order to prevent undue suffering. One of "the noble army of martyrs", while being consumed by flames, stretched out his hand to a bystander and said, "Feel my pulse. If its beat is one more than normal, then say there is nothing in the grace of God to sustain a man in such a time as this." So Nature's God can render still more assistance in order to prevent undue suffering. Perhaps after all, therefore, no matter whether one should suffer martyrdom by fire (as in the case of this man), or by the fangs of wild beasts (as was the case with a myriad of others), or by mangling or mutilating (as with still others), or by beheading (as was the case with Paul), the difference in suffering may not be so very great. And ever it will be true: "My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in [thy] weakness", 2 Cor. 12:7-9; "As thy days, so shall thy strength be." Deut. 33:25. And further to encourage the martyr saints of those days will be the thought that very soon they will be resurrected and rewarded; for at the most, for the earlier martyrs, it will be not more than three-and-a-half years, and for some of the later martyrs as with the two witnesses, Rev. 11:9-11, perhaps not more than three-and-a-half days; and with others it may be even less. No indeed! There will be no "hope deferred" in those days, for, as I shall show later, hope will then have been replaced by the positive knowledge of the very day and perhaps hour of the Lord's coming. Paul, who already had experienced much suffering, and who knew that he might be called upon to make "the supreme sacrifice" by martyrdom,11 could say: "Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." 2 Cor. 4:17. And again: "Neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy." Acts 20:24. And Peter, who actually knew that he was to die by martyrdom12 could exhort his converts thus:
10 There followed many months of suffering, of course, some of it excruciating, and many more months of slow convalescence. Still other months passed before the apparently useless member (which the surgeon had decided to experiment upon with the view to saving it if possible) could be used, even a little; and never has it regained normalcy. But the point is, that under such circumstances, death, if not too long postponed, is practically painless. 11 "The Lord said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things he must suffer for My name's sake." Acts 9:15,16. 12 "Jesus said to Simon Peter....When thou wast young, thou girded thyself, and walked whither thou would: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou would not. This spake He, signifying by what death he [Peter] should glorify God." John 21:18,19. It is legendary that Peter was crucified head downward, and this at his own request, because he felt that he was unworthy to suffer in precisely the same way that his Lord had suffered. Assuming this to be true, it is possible that Peter's very position on the cross hastened his death, or at least hastened unconsciousness, by sending the blood surging to his brain. So while Peter's death was apparently more painful than was the death of his Lord, it may in reality have been much less painful.

"If ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled." 1 Peter 3:14. And again: "Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy." 1 Peter 4:12,13. So why should we fear possible martyrdom during the Tribulation when these men feared it not before the Tribulation? Strange that professed believers should consider it other than a privilege to be permitted to witness for Christ, even with their blood, during the Great Tribulation! I am convinced that many who do hold the contrary idea do so only because of the false notion, constantly proclaimed by their teachers (and that without an iota of Biblical authority for it), that to be in the Tribulation will in itself be proof of a lack in the spiritual life, and so an evidence of the Divine disfavor. As I have shown, the fact that the Lord will send the "two witnesses" into the Tribulation there to witness for Him even unto death, Revelation 11:1-12, utterly disproves such an absurd idea. Some one has well said: "The brave die once; cowards die a thousand deaths." Bearing such things in mind, one will not, because of a cowardly shrinking from possible suffering, be enamored of such a Scripture-wresting, God-insulting, Christ-dishonoring, saint-deceiving doctrine as Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. Whenever one feels that he does not want to believe the doctrine of PostTribulation-Rapturism, because, if true, it means that suffering and possible martyrdom await him, let him read the latter portion of the great "Faith Chapter", also called "The Westminster Abbey of the New Testament", and be ashamed of himself.13 But some will still say, "You are trying to destroy our Blessed Hope, and to give us in its place a nightmare of horror." Poor blind creatures not to see that their co-called "Blessed Hope" is only the hope that the "weak" flesh may be spared temporary suffering for Christ, which temporary sparing of the flesh can only result in the "willing" spirit being deprived of an eternal blessing. Such people need to read not only the latter portion of the great "Faith Chapter", but also to read and meditate upon the first four verses of the next chapter.14 Doing this, reverently and sincerely, they may be able to obey the injunction of the twelfth verse of that same chapter: "Strengthen the drooping hands and paralyzed knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put entirely out of joint but may rather be restored." (Weymouth's translation.) Let them do this, and so rid their minds of the incubus of fear, and they
13 Of all the names which I have seen in Westminster Abbey, never have I recognized one as having belonged to a shirker or a coward. And the Lord was just as careful as to whose name should be inscribed in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews as Great Britain has been as to whose name should appear in her great abbey. 14 "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin [unbelief] which does so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith; who FOR THE JOY THAT WAS SET BEFORE HIM endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. YE HAVE NOT YET RESISTED UNTO BLOOD, STRIVING AGAINST SIN." Hebrews 12:1-4.

will be in a condition to give this subject the careful and unbiased consideration which it should receive. Shortly after the foregoing was written, I came across the same thought expressed in his characteristically brief way by Rev. Henry W. Frost on page 273 of his book, "Matthew Twenty-four and The Revelation". Mr. Frost says:
The frightfulness of the persecution of the Antichrist, according to the Revelation, will be manifested not so much in its supreme intensity as in its supreme extensity. Happily, there is a limitation in human nature as related to suffering, the point being speedily reached where the mortal frame can bear no more; and modern Armenia--not to speak of other martyr nations--probably saw in the individual life as much physical pain and spiritual anguish as will ever be seen in the days of the Man of Sin.

And Mr. Frost is right.

PRE-TRIBULATION-RAPTURISM MERELY INFERENTIAL

While attending a convention of The Christian and Missionary Alliance at Old Orchard, Maine, about 1892, I happened to make it known privately that I was a Post-Tribulation-Rapturist. In the morning Bible Study that day, someone who had heard me speak on this subject asked Rev. A. B. Simpson, the scholarly founder of that organization who was conducting the Study, what Scriptural proof he cold give in support of the teaching of the Alliance that the Church will be Raptured before the Tribulation, and instantly he replied, "It is merely inferential." Apparently not satisfied with this answer, the same person asked the same question the next morning of the minister who had charge of the Study--he was certainly the most brilliant of all the splendid Alliance workers gathered there--and as publicly and promptly as Dr. Simpson had done, this brother also replied, "It is merely inferential." A "Seem to Hint" Not Sufficient How merely inferential Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism is may be gathered from the following excerpts from chapter 8 of R. A. Torrey's book, "What the Bible Teaches", this chapter being titled "The Coming Again of Jesus Christ". (Capitals are mine.)
In the air Christ comes for His own; to the earth He comes with them. FOR ANYTHING WE KNOW, a considerable interval may take place between these two stages of the Lord's coming. Luke 21:36--("Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man,") and 2 Thes. 2:7,8--("For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only He who now lets will let, until He be taken out of the way,") SEEM TO HINT that the whole period of the Great Tribulation intervenes between the coming of Jesus in the air for His earthly saints and His coming to the earth with His saints. Page 219.

Observe the "for anything we know" in the foregoing excerpt. If we do not "know" that "a considerable interval" will "take place between these two stages of the Lord's Coming", why should we think-- much less teach--that such will be the case? "For anything we know", Mars may be populated with a race of superhumans; but why, because of that, declare that Mars is so inhabited? "For anything we know", a thousand things may be, but careful people do not say, much less do they teach positively, that they are. Yet many Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists are very emphatic in their assertions that "a considerable interval" will "take place", etc. Notice, too, the "seem to hint" in the same paragraph. If these passages merely "seem to hint that the whole period of the Great Tribulation intervenes between the coming of Jesus in the air for His earthly saints and His coming to the earth with His saints", why build such a doctrine on them? A mere "hint" is useless as a foundation, especially for the huge structural monstrosity which the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists have built upon the hint allegedly to be found in these passages. In "Some Pre-Tribulation-Rapture preservation in, not removal from, the "When and How Will 'He That Hindereth' Thes. 2:7,8 does not teach the Rapture many suppose. But again Dr. Torrey: Texts", I shall show that Luke 21:36 teaches Great Tribulation, and in the chapter on Be 'Taken Out of the Way'?, I show that 2 of the Church before the Tribulation, as

Of course the Day of the Lord is the time of the Lord's coming to the earth. This is preceded by His coming in the air to receive the Church unto Himself. (1 Thes. 4:16,17.) THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT QUITE AN INTERIM MAY NOT OCCUR between this coming of Christ for His saints in the air and His coming with His saints to the earth. THERE ARE INDICATIONS that there must be such an interval. (a) Christ has much to do with His people before He comes to deal with the world. (b) It is distinctly taught that there is now a restraining power that hinders the manifestation of the Man of Sin. (2 Thes. 2:6,7. R.V.) IT IS NATURAL TO PRESUME that this restraining power has something to do with the Church. Page 218.

There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that "Christ has much to do with His people before He comes to deal with the world". Whatever Christ may have "to do with His people", apart from changing them, which will be done "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye", can just as well be done after He has overthrown the Antichrist and has set up His own Kingdom as before.1 The language here used, "There is nothing to show that quite an interim may not occur", "There are indications", "It is natural to presume", is not the kind of language Dr. Torrey uses when presenting the doctrine of Salvation by Grace through Faith. Nor does he use such language when writing on the believer's privilege to be Filled with the Spirit. Nor does he grope along in this way when he writes on the Second Personal Pre-Millennial Coming of Christ. In all these cases he is clearcut, decisive, positive in his language. It is so. There is no doubt about it. Why? Because "Thus saith the Lord", and "It is written". It is only when he presents Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism that Torrey is doubtful and hesitant. And well he might be, for while the "weak" flesh of him accepts this flesh-pleasing doctrine, the "willing" spirit and the logical and Scripturally-informed mind of him fail to give it proper support, because it is seen to be "merely inferential"; and that only when the recently-invented Pre-Tribulation-Rapture glasses are worn.
The Day of the Lord is not the coming of Christ to receive His Church but that which follows it. How closely it follows it, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY. Page 221.

That is to say, from the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture viewpoint, "it is difficult to say" how closely the Day of the Lord will follow the coming of Christ to receive His Church. But from our viewpoint no such difficulty is seen, which is one of the many proofs of the superiority of our viewpoint over theirs, since it enables us to see clearly what to them is obscure if not invisible.
It is clear from the Bible that the Church will pass through tribulation (Acts 14:22 and other passages), but that does not prove at all that the Church will pass through "The Great Tribulation", when God deals with a Christ-rejecting world. Page 221.

But if the Church "must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God, Acts 14:22, it is because "much tribulation" is necessary for her development in faith and patience. James 1:2,3; 1 Peter 1:6,7; Romans 5:3,4. And if faith and patience can be developed only by tribulation, and only to the extent that one endures tribulation are faith and patience developed, then it follows that the greatest of all tribulations will be required to develop the greatest of all faith and patience.2
1 For more on this subject, see "'Pre-Tribulation Rapture': A reply to W. E. Blackstone", in a later volume. As to the "restraining power" having "something to do with the Church": assuming, but not admitting that it has, that fact affords no proof of a PreTribulation Rapture of the Church. 2 For more on this subject, see the chapters on "Tribulation, a Punishment for the Sinner but a Privilege for the Saint", and "Degrees of Faith, Attainment and Reward", "The Sunclothed Woman", and "The Manchild" in a later volume.

There is much to indicate that the Church will be sheltered during this [Great Tribulation] period. (Luke 21:36. See also the whole book of Revelation where all after Ch. 4:1, has to do with the time after "the Rapture of the Church"). Page 221.

Again, for an examination of Luke 21:36, I refer my readers to the chapter on "Some Pre-Tribulation Rapture Texts", in this volume; and for what I have to say about the absurd idea of the alleged Fourth-Chapter-of-The-Revelation Rapture, see the chapter on "Is the Rapture of the Church Shown in the Fourth Chapter of The Revelation?" in a later volume. Thus we see that even so able a man as R. A. Torrey can produce only "mere inference" in support of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism. And until a hundred years ago no writer of the Church, great or small, ever advanced this "merely inferential" doctrine. In this connection it will not be inappropriate to quote from an article written by Rev. F. E. Marsh, a pronounced believer in the "merely inferential" doctrine of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism, in reply to some comments in "The Speaker's Bible" on certain texts which teach Christ's coming. Mr. Marsh says,
The commentator writes: "The promise might be interpreted rather as the coming of the Son of Man in great spiritual upheavals", etc. "Might be's" are uncertainties. Mites might be maggots, and ultimately evolve into mammoths. If we went on "might be's" in everyday life, we should likely find ourselves in a quagmire instead of being on a rock. A might-be time-table might be all right, but it might be all wrong. So, to say that Christ's coming might be "spiritual upheavals", etc., is nothing but speculative assumptions. The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman, May, 1929. Page 101.

It would be well if these "merely inferential" Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists-and the Rev. F. E. Marsh is one of the worst of them--would take the same medicine they give to others who are suffering, as they themselves are, from the disease of inferentialitis. Certainly their "might be's" became "mites", then became "maggots", which are associated with corruption, and are now become "mammoths" of exegetical putridity; for their entire doctrine "is nothing but speculative assumptions". Certainly, too, as I shall show as we proceed with this discussion, the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists are now "in a quagmire instead of being on a rock", and their "might-be time table" is leading them to look for the Lord's train to come into the depot before His "time table" leads the Post-Tribulation-Rapturists to look for its arrival. More will be said later on this "time table" subject.

SOME PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE TEXTS

Invariably when I say that I do not accept the popular doctrine that the Church will be raptured before the Great Tribulation, the question is asked, "How do you reconcile your belief with Luke 21:36 and Rev. 3:10?" As these are two of the principal texts relied upon to support the PreTribulation-Rapture theory, it may be well to deal with them at this point. Warning His disciples of the perilous times that were to come, Jesus said, "Watch ye therefore, and pray always; that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:36. We have already considered "The Jewish Wastepaper Basket", of which all PreTribulation-Rapturists make use for the disposal of Scriptures which they cannot reconcile with their doctrine, and have seen that this theory denies that Luke 21, and similar Scriptures, refer to the Church. Yet, because it suits their purpose to do so, most if not all of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists persist in quoting the thirty-sixth verse of Luke 21 as exclusively applicable to the Church. On their own showing, all we Post-Tribulation-Rapturists need do when they ask us, "How do you reconcile Luke 21:36 with your teaching?" is reply, "We reconcile Luke 21:36 with our teaching in precisely the same way that you reconcile all the prophetic utterances of that chapter with your theory; namely, by saying that Luke 21 is for the Jews, not for the Church." But as we have no use for the Jewish Wastepaper Basket, and as we desire and can afford to be consistent in our handling of the Scriptures, we accept this passage as a statement made to the Church, and deal with it accordingly. Undoubtedly this text teaches the possibility of escaping "all these things that shall come to pass", and implies that some will escape them. But how will they escape these things? I ask. "By being taken away from the earth before they come to pass," is the usual and somewhat triumphant answer. To which I reply, "Jesus did not say so." What is Meant by "Escape All These Things"? First, I shall try to neutralize this text; that is, so to explain the word "escape" as to show that the text, standing alone, does not prove that the Church will or will not be taken out of the world before the Great Tribulation. Two women call at the home of a sick friend, and learn from her husband that she is suffering from small-pox. Instantly one backs away from the house, then turns and hurries off, fearful for her own safety; but the other asks the husband if he needs any assistance, and upon being informed that a nurse is needed, but because of the nature of the disease no one will undertake the work, she immediately volunteers her services. Entering the house she is at once under strict quarantine because in direct contact with the stricken woman. Several weeks later, the patient, having recovered and the house having been duly fumigated, the courageous nurse is released. Meeting her fearful friend on the street, the latter exclaims, "Oh, I am so glad I escaped that dreadful small-

pox!" it.!

And the courageous woman quietly replies, "I, too, am glad that I escaped

Both escaped the small-pox, one by running away from it, the other by being kept safe while in contact with it. It is not necessary to answer the question, "Which is the better?" Apply this illustration to the text under that, by itself, it is of no use to either side shows that some will escape "all these things", will escape by being taken away from them or by consideration and at once we see in this discussion. It merely but it does not say whether they being kept safe in them.

"Escape" by Preservation In, Not by Removal From Speaking of trials in general, Paul wrote to the Corinthians,
"There has no temptation [trial] taken you but such as is common to man: but

God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted [tried] above that ye are able; but will with the temptation [trial] also make a way of ESCAPE that YE MAY BE ABLE TO BEAR IT." 1 Cor. 10:13. How will God "make a way of escape"? By taking one out of and away from the trial? No, says Paul, but by the bestowal of grace so "that ye may be able to bear it". We find this same use of the word "escape" in Acts 27:43,44. "The centurion commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land: and the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they ESCAPED all safe to land." How did these men escape? Be being kept away from the water or by being brought safely through it? The answer is obvious. To his converts Peter wrote, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having ESCAPED the corruption that is in the world." 2 Peter 1:4. How had these converts "escaped the corruption that is in the world"? By being taken away from it or by being kept safe in it? The latter, certainly; hence the words of the same apostle to the same people, "God has begotten us...who are kept by the power of God through faith." 1 Peter 1:3-5. To sum up briefly: The small-pox illustration neutralizes this favorite PreTribulation-Rapture text, rendering it as useless for my opponent as for myself, but the Scriptures I have quoted destroy that neutrality and make the text my active ally. In other words, this text, read in the light of these other Scriptures, proves my side of the question instead of sustaining the other side, as it is usually supposed to do. One need only use a concordance for a few minutes to discover how often the word "escape" is used in the Scriptures in the sense of "preserved in and brought

through or out of". In every national judgment upon Israel, a remnant of that people "escaped" by being protected in and brought through or out of that judgment; not by removal from it. See 2 Kings 19:30; 2 Chronicles 30:6; Ezra 9:15; Nehemiah 1:2; Isaiah 45:20; Jeremiah 44:14,28; 51:50; Ezekiel 6:8,9; 7:16; 24:27; Obadiah 17, margin. Similarly, the Scriptures show that the "hundred and forty and four thousand" Israelites who are to be sealed during the Tribulation, will "escape" the Tribulation judgments by being protected in and brought safely through them. See Revelation 7:1-8; Isaiah 4:2; 10:20; 66:19. Also see the type of this sealing in the eighth and ninth chapters of Ezekiel. The Psalmist says, "Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped." Psalm 124:7. Observe: "our soul" had been caught in "the snare of the fowler", but "the snare" had been "broken" by a deliverer, and so "we are escaped" "out of" that snare. The significance of this "out of" will become more apparent to the reader as he reads the next few pages. What is Meant by "Keep Thee from the Hour of Temptation"? As with the former text, so with this its companion verse: "Because thou has kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation [the time of trial], which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." Rev. 3:10. The text is first neutralized by the argument that one can be "kept from" small-pox by being taken away from it or by being "kept from" while in contact with it; and then its neutrality can be, indeed, is destroyed, by placing alongside this promise of Jesus a prayer uttered for the same people by the same Divine speaker who, when praying for His followers, said, "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest KEEP THEM FROM the evil." John 17:15. Note this carefully, for it is very important: they were to be kept from by being protected in. Thus this passage also becomes a Post-Tribulation-Rapture instead of a Pre-Tribulation-Rapture text.

Concerning Luke 21:36, S. D. ("Quiet Talks") Gordon says in his book, Quiet Talks About Our Lord's Return,
There is one bit in this Luke account of the Olivet Talk, which is not in Matthew or Mark. There it is clearly taught that the Christian people will experience great testing and suffering during this tribulation time. Here is a new note of encouragement added regarding that saddening prospect--some will be kept untouched and unharmed in the midst of that awful time. This is the very last word in Luke's account, "Watch ye at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail (or be accounted worthy) to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man." Luke 21:36. Through watchfulness and prayer some will use the grace freely given, and pass through the experiences without hurt of any sort, though not without having great pain in spirit because of these happenings. Even so the three Hebrew young men were

in the fire, Dan. 3, but were untouched by it, save to be freer by the burning of their bands. This possibility is held out to us by our Master as the point of His last earnest plea that we shall be ready, watching and waiting and working, with our eye steadily fixed forward to His glad appearing. (Page 54.)

Several years after the foregoing was written, I came across the following excellent examination of these passages by Edmund Shackleton in his book Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation, and decided to give it place here.
We shall now consider a passage which I have been told is the strongest one in favor of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. "Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (Rev. 3:10.) The point to be determined here is the meaning of the expression "keep from". The word translated "keep" occurs very frequently in the New Testament, but I think in only one other passage in combination with the preposition here translated "from". This is John 17:15: "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil one." Here we find this very expression used, and so far from meaning removal from the world, actually used in opposition to the thought of taking away. We are left in close proximity with the evil one and with evil, whichever the word means; and therefore "keeping from" must mean preservation from the power and influence of evil. This verse ought to be enough to settle the point; nevertheless I have heard the statement made that the preposition "ek" conclusively proves the Church is kept out of the hour of trial, so as not to be in it at all. An endless number of passages can be cited from Greek writers as well as the New Testament to demonstrate the falsity of this assertion. The force of "ek" depends upon the connection in which it occurs. For instance, we speak of hanging an object on a peg. The Greeks here used this preposition "ek"--"from", instead of "on" the peg. In this verbal association, removal from contact with the object is not signified. Instances might be multiplied endlessly. The preposition "apo" has much more of the force of "removal from" than "ek", and yet when used with the word "keep", we do not understand the expression to mean removal from the presence or proximity of an object. "The Lord is faithful, who shall establish you, and keep you from evil." (2 Thes. 3:3.) Now though the preposition "apo" is the one used here--and it has more of the force of removal from the object spoken of than "ek"--yet we do not take this verse to mean that the Lord would remove His people from the world, but rather that He would preserve them from the power of evil in it. Therefore in all fairness, we must conclude that "keep from" does not mean "take from", unless there was some very strong doctrinal objection to giving the expression the same force as in the two passages I have drawn attention to. In Acts 26:17 is a somewhat analogous expression: "Delivering thee from the people and the Gentiles, to whom now I send thee." Here we have "ek" used without implying removal from contact with the thing spoken of; in fact, its force depends upon the verb with which it is used. Before leaving this subject I shall quote one other verse which contains a somewhat analogous expression of Rev. 3:10, and yet is never understood as meaning deliverance "out of" without passing through the trouble. "It is the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it." (Jer. 30:7.) The question arises as one of practical interest, What does this promise of keeping from the hour of trial mean, if it does not mean removal from the earth?

The parallel verse (John 17:15) indicates that preservation from all the evil influences of the hour is what is meant. On turning to a lexicon, we find that the proper meaning of the word is "keep carefully", "guard"; and that it is never used in any sense approaching to that of "take", "remove". The common Scriptural expression "keeping the word" evidently means "remembering His commandments to do them". (Psalm 103:18.) The Greek word is variously rendered in the New Testament: keep; watch (Matt. 27:36,54); observe (Matt. 28:20); preserve (1 Thes. 5:23); hold fast (Rev. 3:3). What God is as a Keeper of His people is fully told in Psalm 121. The words in 2 Thes. 3:3, "The Lord shall establish you, and keep you from evil", are almost the same as verse 7 of the psalm; and probably Paul had it in his mind, as perhaps he had verse 8, when penning 1 Thes. 5:23. In that hour of trial God's wondrous keeping power will be experienced in fullest measure by those who, before that hour comes, have been faithful in a day of less trial.3 The promise is conditional upon their keeping His word before that times comes. The Lord's keeping is made conditional upon His people's keeping His word in many other passages--Psalm 25:10; 103:18; Prov. 3:21,26; John 14:23; 17:6,11,12; Jude 20,24; 2 Thes. 3:2,3. But this keeping may mean something more than preservation from spiritual evil. It may be that the being kept alive on the earth till the coming, so as to be changed without tasting death, will be granted as a reward for peculiar consistency and faithfulness in life and testimony. I do not mean that any will escape persecution and testing. Paul's case illustrates my thought. He was promised deliverance from the people and the Gentiles, and yet he was to "suffer great things". So those who remain to the coming "must through many tribulations enter into the kingdom of God". It is possible that the being thus preserved alive may be the meaning of Luke 21:36, "But watch ye at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Also earlier in this conversation He seems to speak of two classes; those who will be martyred, and others "Not a hair of whose head shall perish", but to whom He says, "In your patience ye shall win your souls", or, as in the margin, "lives". We may rest assured the fulfilment of this promise will richly compensate for the trials of that hour. Like the three who for their faithfulness to God were cast into the fiery furnace, the faithful at this crisis may be granted a peculiar manifestation of the presence of the Son of God. God has especial grace for times of peculiar trial. Peter, in forewarning saints that they may be called to go through a fiery trial, speaks of joy as being their proper heritage at such a time. As at the beginning of this dispensation, so at the close, God's people will rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. The objection--that the thought of having to pass through suffering before the Rapture is so depressing and gloomy that it cannot be true--is a proof of spiritual degeneracy. The New Testament everywhere teaches that to suffer for Christ is the Christian's privilege, joy and glory; and that we must pass through tribulation if we are on the path to the everlasting kingdom. Neander records how during one persecution the Christians courted death, that they might obtain the martyr's crown. From this cause the executions at one time became 3 See the chapter on "Tribulation, a Punishment for the Sinner but a Privilege for the Saint", where I have dealt with this subject at some length.

so numerous, that they became an actual embarrassment to the Roman magistrates. Christ is still able to make His people more than conquerors over the fear of death. It is for us to see to it, that in this day of comparatively small trials we are unswervingly faithful to Him and His Word. "For he that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much." (Luke 16:10.)

Dr. Bullinger on Revelation 3:10 Not all Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists quote Rev. 3:10 as evidence that the Church will be Raptured before the Tribulation. Realizing that it does not support that doctrine, some of them throw it into the Jewish Wastepaper Basket. E. W. Bullinger, D.D., the most outstanding Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist of the extreme Jewish Wastepaper Basket users, originator of the theory that The Revelation is entirely Jewish, that no part of it, not even the messages to the seven churches, is "Church Truth", commenting on this verse in his book, The Apocalypse of The Day of the Lord, says,
"Because thou didst keep the word of My patience", i.e., the patient waiting or endurance which I did command. See 1:9; 2:2,19. These commands as to "patience" refer particularly to the waiting during and under the Tribulation. If it be asked where this is, the answer is clear from chapters 13:10 and 14:12--"Here is the patience of the saints". It is the patience of those who shall be in those scenes of judgment and looking for deliverance out of them. For thus is the promise. "I also shall keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole [habitable] world to try them that dwell upon the earth." These are the scenes foretold in Zeph. 1:14-18, and by our Lord in Luke 21:36. This refers to a brief, definite season (Rev. 12 to 19); probably "the three years and a half" closing with the manifestation of the Lord Jesus in the clouds. These earth-dwellers are repeatedly mentioned in this book (see Rev. 6:10; 11:10; 13:8,14). For the "keeping out of the hour", etc., see Psalm 32:6; Isaiah 26:20,21; John 17:15; Psalm 27:1-5. This deliverance may be the "wilderness", as spoken of in Rev. 12. Page 203.

In his pamphlet, "Does the Church Pass Through the Great Tribulation?", H. W. Martin, a Bullingerite, to whom I shall reply in a later volume, says:
The use of two Greek prepositions, in connection with the subject of our study, throws a flood of light on the time of the Rapture. These prepositions are: "apo", i.e., "away from", and "ek", i.e., "out of".... A believing remnant of Israel will be delivered "ek", i.e., "out of" the Great Tribulation. Rev. 3:10....To be delivered "out of" the Great Tribulation, means of necessity that they will be in it.... According to 1 Thes. 1:10 we wait for God's Son "ek", i.e., "out of" the heavens, whom He raised "ek", i.e., "out of" the dead....Pages 8,9.

Later in his pamphlet Mr. Martin says:

"Ek" means "out of", showing a movement as from the interior of a circle outwards.... The first occurrence of "ek" is in Matt. 1:3, "Judas begat Phares and Zara 'ek' (i.e., "out of ") Tamar", (the mother). Thus the first occurrence of "ek" shows that the definition "out of" is correct.... In Matt. 2:6 we find it said of Bethlehem, "Out of ("ek) thee shall come forth a Prince, who shall rule My people Israel." The Lord had to be in Bethlehem, before He

could come out of it.... In Mat. 2:15 we read, "Out of ("ek") Egypt I have called My Son." Egypt before He could be called out of Egypt. Pages 50,51. He had to be in

Mr. Martin gives several other passages showing that "ek" means "out of", but enough has been selected for my purpose. Thus Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists answer Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists in this matter. Here is a good illustration of "a house divided against itself", and we have the Lord's own declaration that such a house "shall not stand". Matt. 12:25. I shall close this subject for the present, as it will come up in the types later, because in the types the typical end time Church characters, Noah, Lot, et al, will be seen to have been "kept from" and so to have "escaped" the typical end time judgment, etc., by preservation in and not by removal from. (Since writing the foregoing, my attention has been called to the fact that in the two passages discussed in it, the Lord was speaking not of the Tribulation but of the Day of the Lord. This is a matter of great importance in this connection. Therefore the reader should turn to "An Explanation", in Volume 2, and study both that brief article and the three Day-of-the Lord-Types carefully; also the three articles on "The Day of the Lord" in the same volume.

Addendum Following are objections raised by a reader to the foregoing, and my replies to the same:
In Revelation 3:10 God has not only promised to keep certain ones from the trial but from the hour of trial. That means they will be removed before it ever comes.

To stress the word "hour" or "time" in this connection is to lead to an absurdity, for even if one were to be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air" before "the hour of temptation", one would still be in that "hour" or "time"; for it would be the same "hour" or "time" up in the air that it would be down on the earth. Hence no one could be kept from the "hour" or "time" itself. Thus the stress falls upon the word "temptation" or "trial"; so we may omit the "hour of" from the passage, and read it thus: "I will keep thee from the trial." The argument, therefore, as presented stands.
And with regard to Luke 21:36: He wants us to escape all those things. It is very easy for us to stress "ek" and "apo", and close our eyes to common sense and the plain reading of the Scriptures here and elsewhere.

I admit that one can wrongly define and stress such words. Elsewhere I have raised similar objection to similar stressings and definings of certain Greek words, when such stressings and definings have led to other than common sense conclusions; for the classical meaning of a Greek word is not always its Scriptural meaning; as will be shown later in a selected article, "Egypt's Witness to God's Written Word". Bear in mind that here it is not only a Post-Tribulation-Rapturist who thus stresses and defines "ek" and "apo" and who refers us to many Scriptures in which

these words have the meaning so stressed and defined, but also two pronounced PreTribulation-Rapturists. I have merely let two of our opponents shoot at others of our opponents. And to my mind, they have done some very good shooting. If Post-Tribulation-Rapturists only had so stressed and defined these words, you might have ground for complaint; but this is not the case. So your quarrel is with teachers on your own side for admitting that we are right in our understanding of this passage.

WHEN AND HOW WILL "THE SALT OF THE EARTH" AND "THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD" BE REMOVED?
"Ye are the salt of the earth....Ye are the light of the world." Matt. 5:13,14. A Pre-Tribulation-Rapture argument based upon these Scriptures is that while the Church is in the world, the extreme corruption and the great darkness of the Tribulation cannot occur; that the "salt" which preserves the world from corruption and the "light" which now hinders earth's greatest moral eclipse must first be removed. At first sight this looks like a very reasonable argument, and apparently clinches the matter. But, like so much that is advanced in favor of PreTribulation-Rapturism, it is impressive only when looked at superficially. One branch of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists teaches that all believers, no matter how infantile in faith and experience they may be, will be taken out of the world at the alleged coming of Christ for His saints before the Tribulation. But even these teach that during the Tribulation there will be a great preaching of the Gospel, with the result that millions will be converted, only to suffer martyrdom for the faith. On this basis, their argument falls flat, for these Tribulation saints will be just as much "salt" and "light" as will any who, as they teach, will have been caught away before the Tribulation. So, on their own showing, there will be both "salt" and "light", in other words, believers on earth, during the Tribulation. Another branch of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists teaches that only the really watchful and ready saints will be caught up before the Tribulation, all others being left to suffer in it. They say that many, perhaps most of these, will be brought to see their mistake, will repent of it, and will be blessedly saved, but will be martyred sooner or later. Also, like the others, these Pre-TribulationRapturists teach that many whom the Tribulation judgments will find entirely out of Christ will then be converted through the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore, this argument about the removal of the "salt" and the "light" from the earth being necessary before the Tribulation can occur, falls still more flat in their case, for it squarely contradicts both these parts of their teaching. Now look at these passages from the Post-Tribulation-Rapture viewpoint. Like our Pre-Tribulation-Rapture friends, we expect the "falling away" of the professed Church before the Tribulation. The rapid increase of Modernism, Christian Science, and other delusions evidences that this "falling away" is in progress. On this we are all agreed. Millions of Christians who accept more or less of Modernism and Christian Science do so only with their heads; their hearts remain loyal to the old faith. They are hindered in their Christian experience by these things but are not utterly robbed of it. They still remain "salt" and "light", even though the salt is less savory and the light is less bright. One has only to observe many of these people to see how their hearts are forever in conflict with their heads in these matters. But, and here is the vitally important thing, while these older people are not being utterly turned away from the faith that was so deeply imbedded in them in the yesteryears, the present generation is being kept from accepting the faith.

Consequently while the older saints are dying off, in many cases their place is not being taken, as before, by the oncoming generation. Thus we see the "salt" and the "light" decreasing even now, with the result that the world is waxing "worse and worse", as predicted by the Holy Spirit through Paul. 1 Tim. 4:1,2; 2 Tim. 3:1-13. As times passes, this "falling away" will increase, with a corresponding decrease of "salt" and "light". Thus the way of the Antichrist will be prepared. It is not necessary to believe that immediately the Antichrist appears there will be a great outbreak of evil. On the contrary, if he is to be accepted as the Messiah, he must first deceive by an appearance of Messianic attributes. Hence he is described in the thirteenth chapter of The Revelation as having two horns like a lamb, but speaking as a dragon.4 In other words, outwardly he will be the apostle of peace, righteousness, and purity, but inwardly he will be the exact opposite. Similarly, in the sixth chapter of The Revelation, he is represented as a white horse rider, the counterfeit of Christ, the white horse rider of the nineteenth chapter. In harmony with his professed office of Messiah, even the war which Antichrist wages in the sixth chapter, of which war I shall write at length in a later volume, will appear to be a righteous war, for thus only can he counterfeit the second white horse rider, of whom it is said, "In righteousness...He doth make war." Rev. 19:11. It is but reasonable to expect that the first of the reign of Antichrist will be a period of unparalleled peace and prosperity, for only thus can he successfully counterfeit the work of Christ and so deceive the world. Not until he shall have been firmly established will his Satanic characteristics appear. Also the religious intolerance of his scarlet-clothed paramour, the woman of the
4Various explanations are given of the beast which has two horns like a lamb, but which speaks as a dragon [Rev. 13:11]. Few interpret it as the Antichrist, as I do. Most understand the first beast [of Rev. 13:1-8] to be the Antichrist, but this is absurd. The first beast [of Rev. 13:1-8] represents the revived Roman Empire, as foreshown in Daniel's prophecy, where it is said to be a ten-kingdomed confederacy which is to be in existence at the second coming of Christ. After this ten-kingdomed confederacy had been functioning for a while, Daniel saw a "little horn" grow out of its head, overthrow three of the other and older horns, and finally take control of the entire kingdom. Dan. 7:7,8,23,24,25. The "little horn" is the Antichrist who becomes the counterfeit "King of kings and Lord of lords" by taking control of the devil's earthly-kingdom, even as Christ, during the Millennium, will become the genuine "King of kings and Lord of lords" by taking charge of God's earthly kingdom. The beast of Rev. 13:11, which has two horns like a lamb but which speaks as a dragon, is the "little horn" under another figure, for in Rev. 13 it does exactly what the little horn does in Daniel 7, namely, takes control of and exercises all the power and authority of the seven-headed, ten-horned beast kingdom. Revealed in Daniel as only another "horn" added to the ten, the character and origin of this king of kings are left somewhat in doubt. Revealed in Rev. 13:11 as another beast, possessing a lamb-like exterior but a dragon-like character, and ascending from the earth, he is seen to be the personification of hypocrisy and sin, having his origin in the nether regions. John's vision of the lamb-dragon beast throws additional light on Daniel's vision of the "little horn", for it tells all that Daniel's vision tells, and more. In one of my booklets, "Antichrist a Person not a System", I showed that for every title given to Christ in the Bible a strikingly similar title is given to the Antichrist, and for every statement made about Christ in the Scriptures a very similar statement is made about the Antichrist, thus proving him to be the counterfeit Christ; all the more dangerous because he is such a remarkable counterfeit. In Rev. 13:11 three of these parallels are seen. (1) Christ is "the Lamb of God". John 1:29. This beast is the lamb of Satan, the counterfeit Lamb of God. (2) Christ, inspired by His Father, Jehovah, spake as never man spake, for He spake as God. John 7:46; 14:10. This beast, inspired by his father Satan, speaks as no other man ever spoke, for he speaks as a dragon, yea, even as that old dragon, the devil, who indwells him. Rev. 12:9. (3) Christ declared that He came down from above, from Heaven. John 8:23. This beast comes up from beneath, from the Bottomless Pit. These few remarks may help to clarify this matter for my readers. The subject cannot be gone into fully here, but may be dealt with at greater length under the heading, "The Three Beasts--The Unholy Trinity", in "Notes on the Revelation", a companion volume to these, which I am expecting to write later.

seventeenth chapter (of whom more will be said later), will be gradually manifested; gradually, that is, in comparison with the shortness of the Antichristian reign, which evidently will be seven years, only the last three-anda-half of which, the openly wicked part, are described in The Revelation. When that religious intolerance reaches a head, resulting in a terrible massacre of the saints, the already depleted supply of "salt" and the already dimmed "light"--depleted and dimmed by Modernism and other Satanic present-day delusions--will be almost entirely removed; and to the extent that this is done, the corruption and the darkness will appear. Thus we see that while these two Scriptures cannot be harmonized with PreTribulation-Rapturism, they are perfectly consistent with Post-TribulationRapturism.

WHEN AND HOW WILL "HE THAT HINDERETH" BE "TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY"?
"Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto Him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is now present; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know that which restrains, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness does already work: only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming." 2 Thes. 2:1-8, R.V. Most of our Pre-Tribulation-Rapture friends believe that in these words Paul teaches that at the coming of the Lord "for" His saints, before the Tribulation, the Holy Spirit will "be taken out of the way" of the Lawless One--the Antichrist-by being "taken out of the world"; He accompanying the saints when they are "caught up to meet the Lord in the air", and remaining with them there until the coming of the Lord "with" His saints, after the Tribulation. These friends also teach that during the Tribulation, after the Holy Spirit and the Church shall have been removed from the earth, there will be a revival of religion in which many, perhaps millions, will be converted, and that these converts will be slain for keeping "the faith of Jesus". Rev. 14:12; 20:4. If the Holy Spirit will not be in the world during the Tribulation, having been "taken out" of the world with the Church "to meet the Lord in the air", there to remain during the whole of the Tribulation period, who or what is it that does for these "Tribulation saints" what the Scriptures declare that only the Holy Spirit can do? These "Tribulation saints" give ample proof that they are saints of a high order, because rather than deny Christ and accept the Antichrist, they elect to suffer an ignominious and bloody death. Such saints must have been "convicted" of sin. Who or what convicts them of sin after the Convictor, the Holy Spirit, is "taken out" of the world? John 3:5. Such saints must have been "baptized" into the "body"; for in this age there is no salvation outside the "body", and the Tribulation period is necessarily a part of this age, for it cannot be a part of the Millennial Age, and there is no indication in the Scriptures of any other age coming between these two ages.1 In what way will these saints be baptized into the "body" after the Holy Spirit is "taken out" of the world? Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 12:13. Such saints must have been "sealed" by the Spirit. Who or what seals them after the Sealer, the Holy Spirit, is "taken out" of the world? Eph. 1:13.
1 See "'The Coming Age of Judgment': A reply to Philip Mauro", in a later volume; also "The 'Suntelia' and 'Telos' Argument: A Reply to Rev. E. W. Bullinger".

Such saints must have been "filled with the Spirit", for only Spirit-filled saints could display such courage, fortitude, and endurance as these will display. How can they be "filled with the Spirit" after the Spirit is "taken out" of the world? Eph. 5:18. He? "But," says someone, "the Holy Spirit is to be 'taken out of the way', isn't And, if so, in what way, and when, and where to?"

Not all Pre-Millennialists believe that by "One that restrains" Paul meant the Holy Spirit, and he certainly does not say so. Therefore, at best, the teaching that the Restrainer who is to be "taken out of the way" is the Holy Spirit is a mere inference. I believe, but cannot prove, that Paul did mean the Holy Spirit. Assuming this inference to be correct, what did Paul mean when he said, "There is one that restrains now, until He be taken out of the way"? Simply this. The Holy Spirit, the Law-abiding One (Rom. 3:31; 8:1-4), is now restraining the progress of lawlessness and preventing the appearance and triumph of the Lawless One, but later will cease to do so. The figure is that of a strong officer of the law, armed with authority and with weapons to enforce his orders, standing before a turbulent mob and its leader to hinder his and its progress. This he does successfully until his superior officers, for wise purposes, order him to step aside and allow the rioting mob and its leader to proceed. The officer is not necessarily "taken out" of the city, or "out of" the country; he is simply "taken out of the way". This can be done by his merely lowering his weapons and then stepping to one side. He does not even have to be "taken out" of the street to be "taken out of the way". So, I contend, the Holy Spirit, who is now "restraining" the Lawless One, will be "taken out of the way" that Antichrist may be manifested. This will be done in God's time and for His own wise purpose, which is to let the world have all the devil its perverted nature wants and all the lawlessness its wicked heart craves, since it will not accept His Christ and all He represents. 2 Thes. 2:11. But although the Holy Spirit will be "taken out of the way", He will not be "taken out of the world", for He will be needed here to convict and regenerate sinners, to baptize, seal, anoint, and fill believers, and to comfort and sustain persecuted saints. 2 Cor. 1:4.2 Addendum After the second edition of this volume had been issued, I received the following from Brother Claud Carter of Newport News, Virginia:
In regard to our discussion on 1 Thes. 2:7, the thought has come to me that we have a parallel case in Rev. 11, about the two witnesses. These witnesses have almost unlimited power till a certain set time, "when they shall have finished their testimony"; but when this time arrives, they are overcome and killed. So the power of God prevents Antichrist from being revealed now, but when his appointed time shall have arrived, God will not prevent any longer, but will allow the Lawless One to be revealed.

Yes, this incident does strikingly illustrate the principle referred to.
2 This subject will be dealt with at greater length in other parts of these volumes, especially in the chapter on "'The Spirit Leaving the Temple': A Reply to Rev. D. M. Panton" and "'The Restrainer': A Reply to F. W. Pitt".

And

to a greater or less extent, so also does every temporary triumph of evil over good, including every period of persecution of the saints. The only difference is in degree, Satan and his emissaries being permitted greater latitude during the Tribulation than ever before or than they ever will be permitted again. As the incident referred to shows, "He who now hinders" will be in the world even during the Tribulation; for while He will have been "taken out of the way" of the revealing of the Antichrist, He will still be "in the way" to hinder the killing of the two witnesses by the Antichrist. But "when they shall have finished their testimony", then again "He who hinders" their killing will again "be taken out of the way", and they will be slain.

THE ALLEGED ENOCH AND NOAH TYPE

Perhaps before considering other New Testament scriptures bearing upon this subject, it would be well to look at a few Old Testament types which are illustrative of the principle that God keeps from by protecting in. Noah Preserved in the Flood "As the days of Noah 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 Noah 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." Matt. 24:37-39. At first glance, this type seems to teach that those of whom Noah is a type are to be kept from the antitypical flood, the Great Tribulation, by being taken away from it. But little more than a cursory glance at the type reveals the fact that Noah was kept from by being protected in the flood. For as the waters of the great deep welled up and the cataracts of the skies flowed down, he was literally in the midst of the flood yet as safe as if in heaven. All the flood could do with Noah was lift him nearer the pure sky and farther from the sin-polluted earth. The splashing of the water as it mingled with the cries of drowning men and beasts was calculated to arouse in his mind a greater sense of God's power. It was to arouse even a greater sense of gratitude for his own protection than the removal from the vicinity of the flood (where it could be neither seen, nor heard, nor felt) would have done. The imminence of the danger made his protection the more blessed by contrast. No doubt the frightful tragedies occurring around Noah--perhaps men, women, and children clinging to the ark they had refused to enter, and their pitiful cries for help ringing in his ears for hours or even days--caused him sorrow, but they also accentuated his gratitude to God for forewarning him of the fearful deluge and protecting him in it. Which is the greater blessing--to be taken away from a danger or to be kept safely in it? To my mind there is but one reasonable answer, and that is the answer suggested by the illustration of escaping smallpox (given in the chapter on "Some Pre-Tribulation Rapture Texts"), and by the prayer of Jesus, "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil that is in the world." John 17:15.

To Noah was fulfilled Psalm 91, "He that dwells in the secret place of the Most High (Jesus, of whom the ark was a type) shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked." I am acquainted with the popular belief that Enoch taken away before the flood is a type of the Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation, and the protection of Noah and his family in the ark during the flood is a type of the preservation of the Iraelitish "remnant" during the Tribulation. But there are at least two difficulties in the way of this interpretation. The Ark is a Type of Christ, Therefore Noah and his Family Typify the Church First: The ark is admittedly a type of Christ, and entering into the ark is regarded (even by the very Pre-Tribulation Rapture advocates who, when it serves their purpose to do so, regard Noah and his family as representative of the Jewish remnant) as typical of sinners taking refuge in Christ from God's judgment upon sin. This is one of the popular themes among evangelists everywhere: Enter the ark by accepting Christ and so become part of His Church and be saved from the wrath to come. Now, where in Scripture is it taught that literal Israel, or even a "remnant" thereof, will take shelter in Christ by accepting Him before the Great Tribulation in order to be preserved during that dread judgment time? A "remnant" of each tribe will be saved out of the Great Tribulation and will acknowledge Jesus as Messiah when He shall appear at its close, as shown in Zech. 14. But that is not saying that they will take refuge (believe) in Him before the Tribulation occurs, which they must do if Noah and his family are their type. In the "time of Jacob's trouble", Jer. 30:7, as in all the less serious punishments of His ancient people, God will preserve a "remnant" of devout Israelites; for Israel must not be utterly destroyed. Rev. 7:3-8. But I do not know where in Scripture it is declared that this "remnant" will enter the ark of safety, that is to say, will accept Christ as Saviour in order to their preservation.3 Paul says that whenever such a remnant is preserved, it is done in order "that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Rom. 9:11,27; 11:5. God made certain promises to Abraham, the fulfilment of which necessitates the preservation of a "remnant" of Israel, no matter what may come or how His "peculiar people" as a nation may act. But one may well believe that the more faithful the Israelite, the better his chance of being one of such a company.4

3 The 144,000 of Rev. 7 are sealed by an angel, not by the Spirit; as Israelites, not as Christians. In the Tribulation, as in all times of trouble involving Israel, God will preserve a pious "remnant". There is no evidence that any of these 144,000 will accept Christ as their Saviour during the Tribulation. To do so would at once make them "neither Jew nor Gentile", Gal. 3:26-28; Col. 3:10,11, but members of "the Church". 1 Cor. 10:32. For a similar marking of a pious Jewish "remnant" under similar circumstances, yet not a sealing with the Spirit as believers in Jesus, see Ezek. 9:1-6. Isaiah says: "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom and Gomorrah." Isaiah 1:9. 4 See chapter on "The Hundred and Forty and Four Thousand" in a later volume.

Enoch Not a Type of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Second: There were two generations between Enoch and Noah. Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah....And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech." Gen. 5:21-25 Therefore, Enoch was 252 years old when Lamech was born. "And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: and he called his name Noah." Gen. 5:28,29. Therefore, if Enoch had been on earth at the time of the birth of Noah, he would have been 434 years old. As he was translated when 365 years old, it follows that he had been with God 69 years when Noah was born; therefore Noah never saw Enoch. "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth." Gen. 7:6. Therefore, Enoch was translated 669 years before the flood, and I cannot see any real connection between the translation of Enoch 669 years before the flood and the preservation of Noah in the flood. To make Enoch a part of this type, he should have been translated only a short while before Noah entered the ark. I think the Enoch-Noah type friends will find it very difficult to bridge this twogenerations-six-and-a-half-centuries gap, but bridge it they must if their theory is to stand. What is Meant by "A Thousand Years as One Day"? "That is easily done," says one of them. "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8. But I ask, "What does Peter mean when he says that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"? Let us read the context and get the answer. "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." To this objection, as common now as it was then, Peter replies, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is not hurrying matters because some impatient or unbelieving men indulge in sneers and jibes and taunts. His "patience" and "long-suffering" are aweinspiring. But He can afford to be patient, if man cannot, because to Him a thousand years are but as a day, for He has all eternity in which to work. Men may accuse God of tardiness and count the delay slackness, but He moves on in majestic calm, turning over the centuries as leisurely as we turn the pages of a book. This is all that Peter means; no more, no less.

God is the "I AM", the Eternal One. With Him there may be said to be no past, no present, and no future, but one eternal Now. But this is not true of us, for with us the time-element is very important. The prophecies deal with man, and man is a time-creature. Therefore God talks to us in time-terms, and when He says "a thousand years", as He does in Rev. 20:2,3,4,5,6,7, He does not mean "one day"; and when He says "a thousand two hundred and three score days", as He does in Rev. 11;3 and 12:6, He does not mean "a thousand two hundred and threescore" "thousand years". Mental gymnastics, such as this airy flight over a two-generations-six-and-ahalf-centuries-wide chasm, may suit some people, but to me they savor of "handling the word of God deceitfully". 2 Cor. 4:2. How much more simple it is to dissociate Enoch from this type, even as the 669 years between him and the flood sever him from it, and then to see in the ark a type of the saving Christ, and in Noah and his family a type of the Church sheltered in Christ from God's judgments during the Day of the Lord. All who are not enamored of a doctrine and bent upon proving that doctrine true at any cost, could and would do so. Enoch a Type Only of Full Salvation Enoch is in no way associated with a Tribulation type, therefore we have no right to connect him with one. To do so is to "wrest the scriptures". Of Enoch we read, "Enoch walked with God: and he was not (found); for God took him." Genesis 5:24. The writer to the Hebrews explains this by saying, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Hebrews 11:5. Enoch is a type only of full salvation, for by faith he was saved from all the effects of the fall, sin, sickness, and death, at a time, so far as we know, when there were no special judgments of God in the earth that can be taken as a type either of the Tribulation or the Day of the Lord. As I have shown in another series of articles, the possession of Enoch-like faith has been a possibility from his day to this. In other words, Enoch is a type of translation-faith saints no matter when or where they lived or will live. Of course, this connects Enoch with the Day of the Lord incidentally, because in the Day of the Lord certain translation-faith saints will be "caught up" without dying, as he was (as will be shown in the next chapter where the Noah type will again be considered but from a different angle); but it lends no support to the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church. As an example of the illogic of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, I quote here from "Notes on the Book of Genesis" by "C. H. M." Mr. Mackintosh says:
I would here mention, for my reader's prayerful consideration, a thought very familiar to the minds of those who have specially given themselves to the study of what is called "dispensational truth". It has reference to Enoch and Noah. The

former was taken away...before the judgment came; whereas the latter was carried through the judgment. Now, it is thought that Enoch is a figure of the Church, who shall be taken away before human evil has reached its climax, and before the Divine judgment falls thereon. Noah, on the other hand, is a figure of the remnant of Israel, who shall be brought through the deep waters of affliction, and through the fire of judgment, and led into the full enjoyment of Millennial bliss, in virtue of God's everlasting covenant. I may add, that I quite receive this thought in reference to those two Old-Testament fathers. I consider that it has the full support of the general scope and analogy of the Holy Scriptures. Pages 106,107.

Here we have the "popular belief" of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists to which I have referred. Next, in the same chapter of the same book, we find the contradictory but equally "popular" belief of these same Pre-TribulationRapturists:
At the third chapter (of the First Epistle of Peter), verse 18, we read, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison; which once were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; to which the antitype baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: who, having gone into heaven, is at the right hand of God, angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject to Him." This is a most important passage. IT SETS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ARK AND ITS CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF CHRIST VERY DISTINCTLY BEFORE US. As in the Deluge, so in the death of Christ, all the billows and waves of Divine judgment passed over that which, in itself, was without sin. The creation was buried beneath the flood of Jehovah's righteous wrath; and the spirit of Christ exclaims, "All Thy billows and Thy waves have gone over Me." (Psalm 42:7.) Here is a profound truth for the heart and conscience of a believer. "All God's billows and waves" passed over the spotless person of the Lord Jesus, when He hung upon the cross; and, as a most blessed consequence, not one of them remains to pass over the person of the believer. Had Noah any anxiety about the billows of Divine judgment? None whatever. How could he? He knew that "all" had been poured forth, while he himself was raised by those very outpoured billows into a region of cloudless peace. He floated in peace on that very water by which "all flesh" was judged. He was put beyond the reach of judgment; and put there, too, by God Himself.... Nothing can more fully express the believer's security in Christ than those words, "the Lord shut him in". Pages 96-99.

One is constrained to ask: How can the Gentile Noah be at the same time and in the same experience a type of both the Israelitish remnant "brought through the deep waters of affliction and through the fire of judgment" of the Great Tribulation, and of the Gentile Church escaping the judgment of God now and hereafter by faith in the atoning blood of Jesus? The idea is amazingly absurd. Upon no other subject than Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism do these talented Bible scholars indulge in such fantastic exegesis. In his comments on Gen. 5:22 and 6:9,14 in "The Scofield Bible", Dr. Scofield presents precisely the same ridiculous and contradictory idea.

THE FLOOD NOT A TYPE OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION

In the foregoing I have assumed that the Flood typified the Great Tribulation, in order that I might show the absurdity of Pre-Tribulation-Rapturism as based upon this alleged Tribulation type. I shall now show that the Flood did not typify the Great Tribulation itself but the Day of the Lord, which will terminate the Tribulation. In the first place, notice carefully four things: 1. In this type is to be seen no person who typifies the Antichrist, the central figure of the Tribulation. 2. There is nothing in the type to show the various deadly happenings which are so prominently connected with the Tribulation; viz., war, pestilence, famine, demon locusts, scorching heat, etc. It is one swift destroying judgment, not, as the Tribulation will be, a series of tormenting judgments. 3. The flood came not at the beginning nor in the middle but at the end of the "seven days"; which seven days typify the last seven years of this age. 4. There is an utter absence of anything to show that Noah and his family were persecuted by any of their contemporaries, whereas the bitter and deadly persecution of the saints is one of the most outstanding characteristics of the Tribulation. Which is not to say that Noah and his family were not persecuted; but if they were, the type does not show it, because this is not a Tribulation type, hence Tribulation characteristics are not found in it. In the true Tribulation types, to be considered later, enough Tribulation characteristics are clearly shown to enable one readily to distinguish such types from the Day-of-the-Lord types. About five years, perhaps less, before the Flood came, the Lord instructed Noah how to prepare for its coming in order to ensure the safety of himself and his household; and Noah acted upon those instructions. Finally all was in readiness with the exception of a few finishing touches. Then the Lord said to Noah: "Come thou and all thy house into the ark...for yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Genesis 7:1,4. Noah and his family did not enter into the ark on the day the Lord gave him this command, nor was it intended that they should do so. But they proceeded to lead or drive the beasts, etc., into the ark and to see that they were safely stowed, and to attend to various other last-minute matters. Then when everything, to the last-minute detail, had been done, and just as the deluge swept upon them, Noah and his family rushed into the ark just in time to escape the destroying waters, and the Lord closed the door. For thus it is recorded: "In the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, in the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened....In the selfsame day5 entered Noah (and his family) into the ark." Genesis 7:11-13.
5 For more on this see "'How Long was Noah In The Ark?': A Reply to Rev. F. E. Marsh".

The "seven days" typify the seven last years of this age--"each day for a year", Ezek. 4:6--during the latter half of which the sinner-tormenting Great Tribulation will occur; at the end of which the sinner-destroying Day of the Lord will come. As Noah Entered the Ark at the End of the Seven Days, So the Rapture Will Follow the Tribulation Because the Flood did not come until the very end of those seven days, it cannot typify the Tribulation; for the Tribulation is to begin in the middle of the last seven years of this age, when the Antichrist shall break the covenant "in the midst of the week" of years, as predicted in Daniel 9:27, and will continue to the end of that week of years--a period of three-and-a-half years, as also is foreshown in the following five places in The Revelation: Rev. 11:2,3; 12:6,14; 13:5.6 With the sudden uprush and downrush of such vast volumes of water--for "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up [below], and the windows [margin, "floodgates"] of heaven were opened [above]"--the ark immediately began to rise from the earth. And it continued to rise, higher and still higher, ever keeping above the Flood-judgment itself, hence being in no way harmed by it, yet never, even for a moment, leaving the sphere of the judgment Flood. The lifting of the ark above the earth immediately reminds the prophetic student of the words of Paul: "We which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (the dead saints) in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." 1 Thes. 4:17. Under the circumstances, a better illustration of the Rapture of the Church could not have been given. And this rising above the earth was followed by a return to the earth; precisely as the prophetic Scriptures show the return of the "caught-up" Church with the Lord to the earth in order that she, with Him, may rule over the earth. See Zech. 14:9; Matt. 5:5. There is no Place for Enoch Here Thus there is here no place for Enoch as prefiguring the Rapture of the Church, allegedly before the Tribulation; for the type shows (1) that the raptured Church is typified by Noah and his family, and (2) that the rapture will not take place until the Day of the Lord, "immediately after the Tribulation"; as foretold by the Lord in His two statements on this subject: "IMMEDIATELY ARTER THE TRIBULATION of those days...they shall see the Son of man coming....And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." "AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH that were before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark [at the end of the seven typical end-time days], and knew not until the [sinner-destroying, not sinner-tormenting] Flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming [the Parousia] of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:29-31,38,39.
6 Some insist that the Tribulation will last the entire seven years. For reasons which will be stated in "The Duration of the Tribulation" in a later volume, I take exception to this view.

The "Parousia" of Christ not to Occur until After the Tribulation Observe two things here: 1. Although the vast majority of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists say that the "Parousia" of the Lord will take place just before the Tribulation, Jesus declares that His coming "immediately after the tribulation" (which time, as we have seen, He identifies here with the coming of the Flood at the end of the seven typical Antichrist-rule days which will include the Tribulation) is His "Parousia"; for He uses the word "Parousia" three times when speaking of His "immediately-after-theTribulation" "coming". "As the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even unto the west, so shall also the PAROUSIA of the Son of man be....Immediately after the tribulation...they shall see the Son of man coming...And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other....As the days of Noah were, so shall also the PAROUSIA 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 Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the PAROUSIA of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:27,37,39. Thus these Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists contradict even the Lord Himself by asserting that His "Parousia" will occur before the Tribulation when, as emphatically as even He could do so, He declares that it will be "immediately after the Tribulation". 2. The coming of the Deluge at the end of the seven typical days, which typify the last seven years of this age, the latter half of which will be the Tribulation period, show indisputably that the sinner-destroying Flood is a type, not of the sinner-tormenting Tribulation described by John in chapters six to eighteen of The Revelation, but of the sinner-destroying Day of the Lord, described by John in the nineteenth chapter of The Revelation, or, as Paul calls it, the "sudden destruction" Day of the Lord. "The Day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction comes upon them...and they shall not escape." 1 Thessalonians 5:2,3. Here Paul refers not to the Tribulation, but to the sudden and inescapable judgment of the Day of the Lord which will terminate the Tribulation; and of which he again makes mention in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, saying: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints." 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. In both of these places, as will be shown later, Paul deals only with one aspect of the Day of the Lord, this being sufficient for his purpose at this time.

This Time-Explanation of the Flood Type Logical In stating that the seven last days which Noah and his family spent earth before the Flood came typify the seven last years of this age, I am agreeing with many, perhaps with all, Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists; so they no quarrel with me, because here I have followed their theory about these days to its logical conclusion. on the but can have seven

At this point I close my argument in support of the statement that the Flood does not typify the Tribulation, and assert that therefore all that the PreTribulation-Rapturists draw from the Flood as such a type is necessarily erroneous. But there remain other things in connection with the type which, in the interest of good Scriptural exegesis and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", should be considered, since they may, and if properly handled, probably will throw much light on other end-time things. But since these other things, no matter how interesting and instructive they may be in themselves, do not affect our subject in any way, I shall, in order to avoid breaking the continuity of thought, put them into a later volume under the headings, "Some Suggestions on The Flood Type, Or, Some Things That Will and Other Things That May Happen During The Millennium", and "Will the Living Nations Be Judged En Masse or as Individuals?: A Reply to Rev. A. C. Gaebelein".

HOW LONG WAS NOAH IN THE ARK?

A Reply to Rev. F. E. Marsh As illustrative of the fact that all is grist that comes to the PreTribulation-Rapture mill, even if it is only gravel, I cite the following from "The Record and Suggestions of My American Trip" by F. E. Marsh, which appeared in his paper, "The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman", issue of February, 1927.
From Milwaukee I went to Madison, the head city in Wisconsin. Mr. Putman, from the Moody Institute, was coupled with me in conducting the meetings. One question that Mr. Putman asked aroused considerable curiosity. The question was, "How long was Noah in the ark?" Various answers were given, but mostly "One year and ten days." At first sight that seems the answer; for we read, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Gen. 7:11); and then we read further, "And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year...and in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month was the earth dried" (Gen. 8:13,14). That, on the face of it, seems to make the time one year and ten days. 600th year, second month and 17 days, 601st year, second month and 27 days. But one thing is invariably lost sight of, and that is, that it was "after seven days", when Noah entered the ark, that "the waters of the flood were upon the earth" (Gen. 7:10), which seven days added to the one year and ten days, makes Noah to have been in the ark one year and 17 days. We have no record of how those seven days were passed by those in the ark and outside of it. We can almost hear the outside crowd jeering at Noah and his family, and saying, "Old Noah was wrong in his prediction"; but presently the clouds gathered, and waters of deluge in their onrush and judgment swept all the mockers away. Those in the ark in those days of silence waited in the calmness of faith, for they knew that God' predictions would be followed by His performances. Our Saviour points to the flood as associated with His advent to the world, and says, "But as the days of Noah were, so also shall 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 Noah entered the ark, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be" (Matt. 24:37-39). What a picture of the Lord's coming for and with His saints! First, Noah and his family, a type of those saved by His grace, were taken away before the judgment came. Christ warns the world, and tells His children He is coming as the Son of Man in judgment to the world, but before that time He will have taken His own to the ark of His presence; for God has not appointed us to wrath.

Pre-Tribulation Rapture Dementia No one more readily admits Dr. Marsh's ability both as a speaker and as a writer on all Biblical subjects, other than that of the time of the Rapture, than I do. And I have no doubt that Mr. Putman is equally as capable as he along these lines. But on the subject of the time of the Rapture, Dr. Marsh, like all other Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, seems to suffer from some form of dementia which hinders the proper functioning of his mind, hence I am compelled occasionally to take issue with him on some aspect of this teaching.

Only a Kindergarten Scholar Needed When Mr. Putman put the question, "How long was Noah in the ark?", and then sought to show that the correct answer is, "One year and seventeen days", some kindergarten scholar should have been called in to show that the proper answer is "One year and ten days", and to prove this from the Biblical record. Observe the assurance with which Dr. Marsh writes:
One thing is invariably lost sight of, and that is, that it was "after seven days", when Noah entered the ark, that "the waters of the flood were upon the earth" (Gen. 7:10), which seven days added to the year and ten days, makes Noah to have been in the ark one years and 17 days.

Let us go to the record and see for ourselves. "The Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark....Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens...and of beasts that are not clean by two....Of fowls also of the air by sevens...to keep seed alive upon the face of the earth. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him....And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, BECAUSE OF THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD." Gen. 7:1-7. The last sentence of the foregoing is very suggestive, for it indicates that Noah and his family were driven into the ark by the threatening waters. This I noticed as I carefully read the Biblical record in the Authorized Version. Wishing to know if other translations would bear this thought out, I turned to two of these, the only ones at hand at the time, and found that both of them did so; one of them very emphatically. Rotherham renders the passage thus: "So Noah entered, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark--FROM BEFORE THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD." Here we find the same intimation, but expressed a bit more strongly. Moffatt's Translation reads as follows: "At the end of the seven days the waters of the deluge covered the earth; and Noah went into the barge along with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives, DRIVEN BY THE WATERS OF THE DELUGE." That this rendering is justified by the record, I shall now proceed to show. As I have said, the concluding words of the record already quoted from the Authorized Version are calculated to lead the observant reader to suppose that when Noah and his family entered the ark, they did so because the flood waters were already threatening them, forcing them to retreat to the ark for safety. And the other two renderings sustain that thought.

Two Records of the Same Event But there are two records of this incident in this chapter, the second of which clinches the matter. The record already quoted may be termed "the record in prospect". That is to say, this record tells us what commands God gave to Noah, including the one to enter the ark, and that Noah obeyed these commands implicitly. But it does not tell us the order in which these commands were carried out by Noah. The next record gives the same thing in retrospect. That is to say, it looks at the incident after it is over, and relates the exact order of its events. "And it came to pass AFTER SEVEN DAYS, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, THE SAME DAY were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened....IN THE SELFSAME DAY entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; they, and every beast...cattle...creeping thing...fowl...bird of every sort....And the Lord shut him in." Gen. 10:16. Now, what is the record? One week before the flood came, God informed Noah that he had but "seven days" in which to make his final arrangements. "And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." Verse 5. What did Noah do "according unto all that the Lord commanded him"? He had already completed the building of the ark, as he had been commanded to do in the previous chapter. And no doubt he had already, as also commanded in that chapter, stocked it with food and provender. But although commanded there to take into the ark of all living creatures, none of these were yet on board. The "round up" of the creatures remained, preliminary to their going into the ark.7 No doubt the Lord caused these creatures to come to Noah, but even so there was certain work for Noah to do in this "round up", for to him the Lord said, "Thou shalt take to thee", etc., showing he was to be a "worker together with God" in this matter. When did Noah do "according unto all that the Lord commanded him"? During the "seven days", of course. Yet Dr. Marsh says, "We have no record of how those seven days were passed by those in the ark", thus assuming that they were in the ark all the while, and then intimates that during the entire seven days they were listening to the jeers of the sinners on the outside. How different this is from the scene of intense activity indicated by the record! A Busy Week Let me try to describe it. "Wife, sons, daughters", cried Noah, "the Lord has just informed me that we have only seven more days in which to get everything
7 How many of these there were we do not know, save that there were ten kinds of "clean beasts", suitable for food or for sacrifices, as shown in Exodus. Hence, the extra five of each of these were to supply flesh for Noah and his family during their sojourn in the ark, and for any sacrifices that might be required of them.

in order before the flood comes, so we must hurry for we yet have much to do." And no matter how fast they may have labored before, now that only one more week remained, they redoubled their efforts. Unquestionably, in addition to superintending the "round up" and arranging for the stowing of the creatures in the ark, Noah, like a traveler going with a large family on a first long journey, found a multitude of "last minute" things to attend to, and they had to be attended to quickly. The unbiased reader will readily see that the purpose of the warning, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth" (verse 4), was to induce Noah to hasten and conclude these final things. This is exactly the reasonable thing one would expect of Him who said, "Come now, and let us reason together", Isaiah 1:18, for He thus shows Himself to be a reasonable Being desirous of dealing reasonably with His people. Unquestionably those were the most strenuous days of Noah's entire time of preparation. For not only must all the animals, etc., be carefully stowed in their quarters (which was a matter of great importance, for during a storm animals on shipboard unless well protected are very likely to be injured, even killed), but also, perhaps, many inspections had to be made. Many a little piece of extra careful caulking of important seams may have been done, and not a few extra nails may have been driven into important parts during that time, the seams and the parts which would be called upon to endure the greatest strains. For Noah knew that one such leaky seam or loose board might prove fatal to all on board the ark. As already indicated, and as most--if not all--Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists claim, those seven days typify the last seven years of this age, which seven years, as some teach, will be the Tribulation period. Others, and with these I am in agreement on this point, say that the second half only will be the Tribulation period. No matter here which of these views is the correct one, the fact is that practically--if not actually--by common consent, these seven years will at least include the Great Tribulation. So here we have typified what the Church will be doing during the last seven years of this age. She will not be sitting idly shut up in the ark, as Dr. Marsh says she will be, waiting for the Flood to come (by which he means that she will be "in the air" with the Lord waiting for the Tribulation to begin on the earth--a contradiction in itself for how could a family of people on the earth typify a company of saints in the air?). But she will be down on the earth in the Tribulation, busy, more busy than ever, in making her final preparations for meeting the Tribulation-climaxing judgments of the Day of the Lord. The only thing in this type even to suggest the Tribulation period is the probable "jeering" of the ungodly rabble as they stood, not mocking Noah shut up in the ark (as Dr. Marsh things they were doing), but watching Noah feverishly busy in getting the last things done--the last but not least things, because if these were not done, all the many years of work already done would have been in vain; hence Noah would be extremely desirous of doing them, and doing them well. Noah's anxiety, being apparent to the mob drawn to the scene by the mobilization of the animals, etc., may have evoked not only jeers but also actual hostile acts; not the least of which may have been attempts to stampede the animals and shoo away the birds. Under such circumstances an ignorant, godless mob is a very dangerous thing. And this mob certainly was an ignorant, godless mob. I shall leave the reader to make his own application of this to the Tribulation.

The last of the seven days dawned, and the last of the creatures went into the ark. Busy days those must have been for Noah and his family in superintending their embarkation. If one thinks they were not, then that one hasn't watched cattle and other animals being loaded on ships as often as I have. A Last-Minute Rush for Safety The last hour of the last of the seven days had come. Apparently Noah and his family were still outside the ark seeing to it that nothing had been left undone, that no creature or thing that should have been in the ark had been overlooked. Then, suddenly, "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened", and the deluge was one. If anything were now undone, it was too late to attend to it. Rushing to the ark, "driven by the waters of the deluge", as Moffatt renders it, Noah and his family entered, and "the Lord shut him in". It was just in time to prevent the inrush of the judgment waters, and perhaps also of a multitude of death-doomed jeering sinners who may have assembled (attracted by the unusual activities of the Noah family during those last seven days and the presence of the many creatures in the vicinity of the ark). It was a multitude whose amusement had suddenly changed to terror, and who now, fearing the flood, would fain have entered the ark for safety. "In the selfsame day", mark you, Noah and his family entered the ark. What "selfsame day"? The "selfsame day" on which "the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened". Not seven days before that, as Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman assert. As quoted on the first page of this article, Dr. Marsh says, "Our Saviour points to the flood as associated with His advent to the world", etc. Ye, He does. But our Saviour was a less biased reader of this Scripture than was Dr. Marsh, for He drew from it the same conclusion I have drawn, viz., that Noah entered the ark "the selfsame day" that the flood swept in upon him and his, not seven days before; for He said, "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until THE DAY that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26,27. Here Jesus makes the day of the entering into the ark the day of the coming of the flood, with its resultant destruction of "them all"; for these people would not cease to eat and drink merely because Noah had entered the ark, thus fasting absolutely for seven days before the flood came (which they would have done if Dr. Marsh's understanding of this Scripture were correct). It was the flood that ended the eating and drinking, the marrying and giving in marriage; and these, Jesus Himself so declaring, ceased "the day that Noah entered into the ark", thus proving conclusively that Dr. Marsh is in serious error here. To clinch the matter, Jesus added: "LIKEWISE ALSO as it was in the days of Lot: they did eat, they drank, they

bought, they sold, they planted, they built; BUT THE SAME DAY that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:28,29. Observe the striking correspondence between this last-minute rush of the Noah family for safety and the hasty last-minute departure of the Lot family from doomed Sodom, so graphically depicted in Gen. 19:15-24. Pre-Tribulation-Rapture Nonsense Versus Business Sense Handing Dr. Marsh's article to a friend, I bade her read it as something new. She did so. Then I handed her a Bible, saying, "Look at the record in Genesis 7 and see whether it supports what Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman assert." She read the record and then said, "It says here that Noah and his family entered the ark 'in the selfsame day' that the flood came." "Yes", I said, and then asked, "And what do you suppose they were doing during those seven days before the flood came?" "Seeing that everything was in good order, and that nothing was left undone", was her reply. This friend is not, like Dr. Marsh, a trained Bible teacher with an international reputation, but merely a business woman who is accustomed to saying exactly what she means and who supposes that others, and especially the Lord, does the same thing. So almost instantly she found in the record what Dr. Marsh says is not there, viz., a very strong intimation--so strong as to amount practically to a positive statement--of what the Noahites were doing during that last week. And of course, in doing so she detected the fallacy of the theory of these two learned gentlemen--that Noah and his family, with all the animals, etc., were locked in the ark unnecessarily during those seven days doing nothing except drawing needlessly upon their food supplies. As a business woman, she gave God credit for doing things in a better manner (because more sensible, economical and business-like) than Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman says He did them. A few days later I took the matter up with two businessmen, a father and son. When I asked, "What do you suppose Noah and his sons were doing during those seven day?", the son instantly replied, "Rounding up the animals, of course", thus expressing the same idea which I had already committed to writing (but which I had not expressed to him). Thus we four business people opposed our business sense to the Pre-Tribulation-Rapture nonsense of these two outstanding Bible teachers. Why Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman were Blind to the Facts Why could not Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman see in this record what these business people could so readily see in it? The answer is simple. Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman are Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists and had a PreTribulation-Rapture ax to grind. Hence, they tried to find in this record something that would help support their theory, whereas these business people had no such theory to influence them. Consequently, these business people did not approach the subject with theologically-trained minds (as did Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman, desirous of finding in, or ready to read into, the record an idea which would at least "give color" to a pet theory). But with unbiased and businesstrained minds, desirous of discovering the facts regardless of consequence, they were able to reach a correct conclusion.

A Common Pre-Tribulation Rapture Error Dr. Marsh draws a conclusion, a very absurd conclusion as I shall show later, from this alleged "seven days of silence", this week of supposed inactivity, this period of asserted "waiting in the calmness of faith in the ark"; and this conclusion reveals the cause of his blunder.
What a picture of the Lord's coming for and with His saints! First, Noah and his family, a type of those saved by grace, were taken away before the judgment came. Christ warns the world, and tells His children He is coming as the Son of man in judgment to the world, but before that time He will have taken His own to the ark of His presence; for God has not appointed us to wrath.

Here crops out again the common Pre-Tribulation-Rapture error, that presence in a judgment scene proves one a participant of that judgment. The Fable of the Mountain and the Mouse The Pre-Tribulation-Rapturist "mountain" has travailed, and it has brought forth not even the ghost of a Pre-Tribulation-Rapture "mouse", but a mere imagination! For there is absolutely no foundation in fact for the conclusion to which Dr. Marsh has arrived, viz., that the Noah family was shut up in the ark during those seven days. Therefore, there is not substance in the theory which he bases upon this alleged fact. His premise being erroneous, necessarily his conclusion, based upon that premise, is also erroneous and a square contradiction of the Genesis record and of the Lord Jesus Himself. A Conclusion Contrary to the Facts I have said that the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Marsh is an absurd conclusion. Here is the proof. Suppose Noah and his family had entered the ark on the first of those seven days and that God had locked them all in and had kept them there during the entire week before the flood came. What then? They would still have been on the earth, not "taken away" to some far-off place "in the air", or even on to some mountain top, as would have been required if Dr. Marsh's conclusion were correct. And they would have been shut up in the ark unnecessarily during the whole of those seven days, for both God and Noah knew that the Flood was not to come until the end of that week. If Dr. Marsh and Mr. Putman cannot make good sense out of such a simple type as this, they should leave it alone, for silence is better than nonsense. That Noah and his family entered the ark at the end of the seven days and then were lifted above the earth, I have shown in "The Flood Not a Type of the Great Tribulation" in this volume. Thus their removal from the earth after the completion of the seven days (which seven days typify the last seven years of this age and so includes the three-and-a-half-years Tribulation), is a type not of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture but of a Pre-Day-of-the-Lord Rapture.

THE TRIBULATION JUDGMENTS NOT CONFINED TO THE EARTH

Here is a thought suggested by the foregoing which I present for the careful consideration of Dr. Marsh and his fellow Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists. Suppose the Church were to be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air", there to remain with Him during the Tribulation. Would she not still be in the judgment zone, since during that time even the heavenly bodies (which extend far beyond "the air") are to be affected by the Tribulation and the Day-of-the-Lord judgments, and that "the air" itself also is to be affected by those judgments? Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the SUN be darkened, and the MOON shall not give her light, and the STARS shall fall from heaven, and the POWERS OF THE HEAVENS shall be shaken." Matt. 24:29. It may be objected that these aerial and celestial disturbances are not to occur until "immediately after the Tribulation". Jesus does so state, but that is because here He is speaking of the Day-ofthe-Lord judgments which, climaxing the Tribulation judgments, are also to greatly exceed them. One has only to read chapters 4 to 19 of The Revelation to see that there is to be a progressive development of these judgments which is to result in a climax. For instance, in Rev. 8:12, when the fourth angel sounded his trumpet, "the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise", hence there was a one-third decrease in the normal amount of light and heat; but when later the fourth angel poured out his vial on the sun, the heat of the sun was so intensified that men were scorched as with fire. Rev. 16:4. Observe, too, that under the breaking of the sixth seal, Rev. 6:12-14, it is said, "The SUN became black as sackcloth of hair, and the MOON became as blood; and the STARS fell unto the earth, and the HEAVEN (the aerial heaven) departed as a scroll when it is rolled together." Also observe that whereas in Rev. 16 the first angel poured out his vial "upon the earth", the second "upon the sea", the third "upon the rivers and fountains of water", the fourth "upon the sun", the fifth "upon the seat (throne or capital) of the beast", and the sixth "upon the great river Euphrates", the seventh angel poured out his vial "into the air" with the result that "there were thunders, and lightnings...and there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent (103 pounds); and men blasphemed God because of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great". At the same time "there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth". Thus, not only will the earth be affected by God's judgments during and

especially near the end of the Tribulation, but also "the air" will be greatly affected--the very place where, according to most of our Pre-Tribulation-Rapture friends, the Church will be at that time (having been taken there in order to be outside the judgment zone). And not only that, but even the planets beyond "the air" will be greatly affected. These Scriptures considered as a whole present a scene of aerial and celestial as well as terrestrial disturbances, beginning very early in the Tribulation in the minor, and culminating at its close in the major, the final fully justifying the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:29 (which, after all, are but a repetition of the words of several of the Old Testament prophets--Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7,8; Joel 2:10,30,31; Amos 5:20; 8,9). So far-reaching will be the judgment sphere, that to get beyond it the Church would have to be removed to a place not only outside but even beyond the influence of our entire solar system. Not an impossible thing, or course, nor even a difficult thing for God to do, but nowhere in the Scriptures is it intimated that this will be done; so no one has the right to say that it will be done. Hence we see that not even "in the air" would the Church be outside the judgment zone, and that, therefore, on this basis alone, the principal argument of the Pre-Tribulation-Rapturists, as here expressed by Dr. Marsh--that God will not permit the Church to be in the judgments--falls flat. That the Church, whether "in the air" or on the earth, will not be the object of God's judgments, is true, of course. That the Church will not be within the sphere of God's judgments, whether she be "in the air" at that time or on the earth, is equally false. That the Church will be "kept from" those judgment by preservation in, not by removal from them, and thus will "escape" them, I unhesitatingly assert and all Scripture proves. And neither Dr. Marsh nor any other man can prove the contrary by type or antitype or by a single passage of Scripture fairly construed. Which brings me to my final point in this connection, viz., that the purpose of the Church being "caught up to meet the Lord in the air" from all parts of the earth is not that she may "escape" or be "kept from" anything, but merely in order that she may be able to accompany Christ when He descends to the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem (as I shall clearly set forth in my "Reply to W. E. Blackstone's 'Rapture' and 'Revelation'" in a later volume), and this will not occur until "immediately after the Tribulation", as Jesus stated (Matt. 24:29-31) and as the Noah type shows.