During the Los Angles riots of the early ‘ 90s, Rodney King made an impassioned media appeal in an attempt to quell the violence when he said, ” Why can’ t we all just get along?” A similar sentiment has become an evangelical mantra in the late 1990s. We are frequently told today that unity will bring a much needed revival to the American church, but only if we’ ll all ” just get along.” What does the Bible have to say about unity and ecumenicalism?

Evangelical Ecumenicalism

The last few years have witnessed a shift in aggressive ecumenicalism from Liberals to Charismatics and now to Evangelicalism. We are told that we must unite with any and everyone (including Catholics and even Mormons) so that our evangelism efforts will bear fruit. Sure we can maintain our doctrinal distinctives, but those should not be a barrier to this new spirit of group participation. For example, Joe Stowell, President of Moody Bible Institute participated in The National Consultation on Evangelism on May 1, 1996 near Washington, D.C. It is reported that he ” reminded participants that God historically moves only when His body is unified.” [1] Joe Aldrich, then president of Multnomah School of the Bible, argues that unity is the universal cure for all spiritual ailments.

Its presence would silence the critic and attract the unconvinced. Its presence would release large amounts of spiritual energy. Remember, where it exists, God commands his blessing (see Psalm 33). When Present, unity scatters hope in every direction.

Its return would be a miracle.

Friend, we’ re talking about UNITY. Not uniformity, not even union, but unity.[2]

I recently recall hearing a charismatic espouse the following formula for effective evangelism in any community: ” If a city has 10% unity, then there will be 10% response to the gospel. If 30%, then 30% response. If 80% unity, then an 80% response to the gospel.” The implication was that if you or your church don’ t participate in city-wide events, then your non-participation would prevent people from getting saved. Such Evangelical superstition is increasingly common in our day. However, no such thing is taught in the Bible.

Biblical Unity

The New Testament does teach us about the unity of Christ’ s Body- the Church. However, I believe that it is very different than many popular notions that are even penetrating some IFCA churches through such recent movements like the ” March for Jesus” and ” Promise Keepers.” Both organizations were conceived within the Vineyard movement of the late John Wimber and have as goals a unity that is in conflict with the New Testament faith.

There are two unity passages in the New Testament that we should consider in order to understand this issue (John 17:11, 21-22; Ephesians 4:3, 13). Correspondingly, I see two aspects to biblical unity. John 17 speaks ofpositional unity, while Ephesians 4 instructs Believers about experiential unity. Confusion of these two aspects of unity are at the core of the error of ecumenical unity.

Positional Unity

John 17:21 says, ” that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” This passage in Christ’ s High Priestly prayer is a seed-plot statement about Church Age Believers being placed into the Body of Christ and thus union with the Triune God. This is a forensic work done by God in the bookkeeping room in heaven at the moment of salvation on behalf of all believers. It is not an experience, even though this act will be the basis for experience with our Lord. The unity spoken of in this verse is not the result of any human act. It is a sovereign work of God when an individual believes the gospel. Every Believer in Christ is in unity with the Triune God and every other Believer in the history of the Church because God has never failed to fulfill what He said He would do. Nothing in this passage speaks of any human activity. At this point, the Believer is passive. It is a statement of what God will do on our behalf. I am confident that God The Father answered His Son’ s prayer.

The increasingly popular teaching that experiential unity is the basis for greater results in evangelism or will bring revival cannot be supported from this passage. Further, the phrase, ” that they may all be one” refers to the union of Jew and Gentile into one body, the Body of Christ. This was accomplished, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2- 3, with the birth of the church as Jewish and Gentile Believers are co-equal in the Body of Christ. They are made one- positionally- enabling the world (i.e., the Gentiles who were previously ” without God in the world” [Ephesians 2:12]) to now have access to God through Christ. It is instructive at this point to read Ephesians 2:11- 22 paying attention to the phrases of unity that Gentiles now enjoy with saved Jews on the basis of Christ’ s work for the Body of Christ. Jesus prayed for it in John 17 before the cross and Paul reports on the fact that Christ’ s work is an answer to the prayer.

Experiential Unity

I recall our church history professor in seminary noting that the basic of theological error of holiness and Pentecostal/charismatic theology is their confusion of positional and experiential truth. For example, the idea of sinless perfection was erroneously developed by teaching that we could experience what Christ has done for us (usually related to justification) with what He has enabled us to experience in our Christian walk (usually related to sanctification). This same error is at the heart of those who think that Believers will ever experience the type of union that Christ has provided for us positionally. However, Paul does teach in Ephesians 4 that there is a basis for experiential union. Simply put, doctrine is the basis for experiential union. Strangely, this is the very item that current ecumenicists insist must be set aside if we are to have their kind of unity and its fruits. The context of Ephesians 4 is that of doctrine.

Until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:13- 16)

Conclusion

The basis for Christians getting together to do things for Christ is to be based upon what we believe and not on the liberal counterfeit of setting aside our beliefs to accomplish some greater good. Starting at Babel, apostates have always wanted to get together to accomplish some great feat, to ” make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4) through the power of numbers. Yet, God Himself judged them by scattering them. Today we see the same spirit telling us that we should lay aside God’ s Word, come together with any willing soul in order to accomplish some great task- evangelism. History has shown that Satan still uses the same basic lie of Babel, but he has refined it by attempting to blend it with some degree of the truth.

The IFCA and similar organizations were formed earlier this century as a response to liberalism. Their basis for fellowship was a doctrinal one based upon a faithful adherence to God’ s Word. Our forefathers fought the battles of their day and stood strong regardless of the circumstances. Years later the issues have changed (at least their packaging), yet the basic issue remains the same: Are we going to express our loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ in the way He has prescribed devotion- doctrinally? Or, will our hearts be stolen away by the promise of pseudo-success if we will all just get along?

 

Endnotes
[1]Gary Thomas, ” Leaders Map Out Evangelism Plan,” Charisma, July 1996, p. 22.

[2]Joe Aldrich, Prayer Summits: Seeking God’ s Agenda for Your Community(Portland: Multnomah Press, 1992), p. 9.

Many non-pretribulationists contend that Matthew 24:31 teaches a posttribulational rapture. All agree that this passage teaches Christ’ s second coming. This means that the question revolves around whether Matthew 24:31 (Mark 13:27 its parallel passage) is a reference to the rapture or not. I contend that the rapture is not in view in this passage. The text reads as follows:

” But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31)

Posttribulational PositionPopular posttribulational radio personality, Irwin Baxter, believes that the rapture and the second coming ” are the same event” in Matthew 24:31.[1] ” Matthew 24:29 teaches that the coming of the Son of man and the rapture are the same event,” contends Baxter. He arrives at this conclusion by comparing Matthew 24:29-31 to Christ’ s return in Revelation 19. In the discussion cited, Baxter does not refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, the undisputed rapture passage, as a baseline for defining the rapture.

Posttribulational rapture scholar, Dr. Robert Gundry, also equates the rapture with the second coming in Matthew 24:31. ” Posttribulationists,” contends Gundry, ” equate the rapture with the gathering of the elect by angels at the sound of the trumpet (Matt. 24:31).” [2] Unlike Irwin Baxter, Dr. Gundry does interact with the rapture passage (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). He says, ” If we define the rapture strictly as a catching up, only one passage in the entire New Testament describes it. That passage is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.” [3]

Definition of the RaptureAs noted earlier, Baxter does not even attempt to define the rapture. Apparently this allows Baxter flexibility to find the rapture in Matthew 24:31. As noted above, Dr. Gundry includes in his definition of the rapture ” a catching up” from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Dr. Gundry wants to ” broaden the definition to include a gathering or reception” from Matthew 24:31, etc.[4]Since the present debate is whether or not Matthew 24:31 is a rapture passage, it would beg the question to include Matthew 24:31 in an a priori definition of the rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the only undisputed passage describing the rapture event. Only in this passage is the Greek word harpaz™ (” caught up” ) used, from which the word rapture descends. Whatever else the rapture may include in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it clearly consists of a translation of living believers and the simultaneous resurrection of dead saints.

Comparison of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Matthew 24:31In an attempt to equate Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 as referring to the same event, Dr. Gundry notes ” parallel terminology in Paul’ s Thessalonian discussion of the Church’ s rapture, where we read of a trumpet, clouds, and a gathering of believers just as in the Olivet Discourse.”[5] Indeed, there are some similarities between the rapture and the second coming. There are also some similarities between Christ’ s first advent 2,000 years ago and His second advent. But all agree that they are not the same events. We know they are not the same because of the differences. In the case of comparing Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 it is the differences that are important. Enough differences exist between the two passages to clearly conclude that they must be separate events.

Dr. Steven McAvoy points out that ” the differences between Paul’ s Thessalonian statements and Matthew 24:30-31 far outweigh any alleged similarities.” [6] Dr. McAvoy continues:

Sproule asks,

Where does Paul mention the darkening of the sun (Matt. 24:29), the moon not giving its light (Matt. 24:29), the stars falling from the sky (Matt. 24:29), the powers of the heavens being shaken (Matt. 24:29), all the tribes of the earth mourning (Matt. 24:30), all the world seeing the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), or God sending forth angels (Matt. 24:31)?[7]

Feinberg also notes the dissimilarities between the two accounts:

Notice what happens when you examine both passages carefully. In Matthew the Son of Man comes on the clouds, while in 1 Thessalonians 4 the ascending believers are in them. In Matthew the angels gather the elect; in 1 Thessalonians the Lord Himself (note the emphasis) gathers the believers. Thessalonians only speaks of the voice of the archangel. In the Olivet Discourse nothing is said about a resurrection, while in the latter text it is the central point. In the two passages the differences in what will take place prior to the appearance of Christ is striking. Moreover, the order of ascent is absent from Matthew in spite of the fact that it is the central part of the epistle.[8] [9]

In addition to the above differences, the order of events are different between the two passages. In 1 Thessalonians 4 believers are gathered in the air and taken to heaven, while in Matthew 24 they are gathered after Christ’ s arrival to earth. ” In order for Gundry to establish his view that Matthew 24:31 refers to the rapture, he must reconcile the dissimilarities; not simple point to a few similarities.” [10] Thus, the differences in the two passages support the pretribulational contention that they are speak of two distinct events.

Who are the Elect?I believe the elect in Matthew 24 is a reference to the Jewish remnant who will come to faith in the Messiahship of Jesus during the tribulation period. Commentators generally recognize that ” elect” ” may refer to Israel, to the Church, or to both.” [11] The context is the determinative factor in any attempt to discover which nuance the author intended. The contextual usage of Matthew supports the elect as a reference to Israel because of the Jewish orientation of the passage. ” Such terms as the gospel of the kingdom (24:14), the holy place (24:15), the Sabbath (24:20), and the Messiah (24:23-24) indicate that Israel as a nation is in view,” [12] observes Dr. Stanley Toussaint. Dr. Renald Showers provides a more focused explanation:

The elect are the faithful, believing Israelite remnant in contrast with the unbelieving sinners within the nation. In Isaiah 65:7-16 God drew a contrast between these two groups and their destinies. In verse 9 He called the believing remnant ” mine Elect,” and in verses 17-25 He indicated that in the future Millennium His elect remnant of the nation will be blessed greatly on the earth.[13]

Since the term ” elect” is used three times in Matthew 24 (verses 22, 24, 31; see also Mark 13:20, 22, 27), it is most likely that the author uses it to refer to the same entity all three times. Dr. McAvoy says, ” The rule of context precludes understanding ‘ elect’ in 24:22, 24 as referring to Israel and then nine verses later as referring to the church. Without some indication of transition from one intended meaning to another ‘ elect’ in 24:21 must mean the same as it does in 24:22, 24.” [14]

The Angelic GatheringTo me, the most convincing reason why Matthew 24:31 is not a rapture statement is found in the fact that this verse includes citations from Old Testament passages, specifically Deuteronomy 30:4. These references clearly support the notion that this angelic gathering, which was predicted in the Older Testament, references a regathering of saved Jews who need to be returned to the land of Israel in which they will live for a thousand years during Christ’ s Kingdom. Instead, of using El Al airlines, the Lord will use angelic carriers to transport His people back to their land. What is the support for this view? Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum tells us the following about the use of Old Testament citations in Matthew 24:31:

The Matthew passage is a rather simple summary of all that the prophets had to say about the second facet of Israel’ s final restoration. Its purpose was to make clear that the world-wide regathering predicted by the prophets will be fulfilled only after the second coming.[15]

Dr. Renald Showers has done an excellent job collecting evidence and arguing for this view.[16] After noting that ” from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other” means that ” the elect will be gathered from all over the world at Christ’ s coming,” [17] Dr. Showers provides three lines of proof for his view as follows:

First, because of Israel’ s persistent rebellion against God, He declared that He would scatter the Jews ” into all the winds” (Ezek. 5:10, 12) or ” toward all winds” (Ezek. 17:21). In Zechariah 2:6 God stated that He did scatter them abroad ” as four winds of the heavens.” . . . God did scatter the Jews all over the world.

Next, God also declared that in the future Israel would be gathered from the east, west, north, and south, ” from the ends of the earth” (Isa. 43:5-7). We should note that in the context of this promise, God called Israel His ” chosen” (vv. 10, 20).

. . . Just as Jesus indicated that the gathering of His elect from the four directions of the world will take place in conjunction with ” a great trumpet” (literal translation of the Greek text of Mt. 24:21), so Isaiah 27:13 teaches that the scattered children of Israel will be gathered to their homeland in conjunction with the blowing of ” a great trumpet” (literal translation of the Hebrew). . . .

Gerhard Friedrich wrote that in that future eschatological day ” a great horn shall be blown (Is. 27:13)” and the exiled will be brought back by that signal. Again he asserted that in conjunction with the blowing of the great trumpet of Isaiah 27:13, ” There follows the gathering of Israel and the return of the dispersed to Zion.”

It is significant to note that Isaiah 27:13, which foretells this future regathering of Israel, is the only specific reference in the Old Testament to a ” great” trumpet.

Although Isaiah 11:11-12 does not refer to a great trumpet, it is parallel to Isaiah 27:13 because it refers to the same regathering of Israel. In its context, this passage indicates that when the Messiah (a root of Jesse, vv. 1, 10) comes to rule and transform the world as an ” ensign” (a banner), He will gather together the scattered remnant of His people Israel ” from the four corners of the earth.” [18]

What Jesus describes in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is the Jewish ingathering that will fulfill the prophetic aspects of the Feast of Trumpets for the nation of Israel. In fact, a prayer for this regathering of the children of Israel appears to this day in the Jewish Daily Prayer Book.[19]

Conclusion

It is quite clear that since the church is not mentioned in Matthew 24, then verse 31 cannot be a reference to the rapture of the church. Instead, as one studies the context and Old Testament references that our Lord alludes to, it becomes quite clear that He speaks of an end time regathering of elect Israel in order to return them to the land for the Millennium. At Christ’ s first coming he wept over Jerusalem and expressed His desire to gather Israel to Himself ” the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37). At His second coming, elect Israel will look upon Him whom they have pierced (Zech. 12:10) and say, ” Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Ps. 118:26; Matt. 23:39). Maranatha!

 

Endnotes
[1] This information is take from the web site of Irwin Baxter atwww.endtime.com, under the Question and Answer section dealing with the rapture. All subsequent quotes from Baxter are from the same source.

[2] Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 135.

[3] Robert H. Gundry, First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’ t Come Before the Antichrist Does (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), p. 71.

[4] Gundry, First the Antichrist, p. 71.

[5] Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 135.

[6] Steven L. McAvoy, ” A Critique of Robert Gundry’ s Posttribulationalism,” Th. D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986, p. 136.

[7] John A. Sproule, ” An Exegetical Defense of Pretribulationism,” Th. D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1981, p. 53.

[8] Paul D. Feinberg, ” Response: Paul D. Feinberg,” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Posttribulational? by Richard R. Reiter, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 225.

[9] McAvoy, ” Critique of Gundry,” p. 137.

[10] McAvoy, ” Critique of Gundry,” p. 138.

[11] Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 135.

[12] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), p. 277.

[13] Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel, 1995), p. 182.

[14] McAvoy, ” Critique of Gundry,” pp. 140-41.

[15] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah (San Antonio: Ariel Press, 1982), p. 299.

[16] For more information supporting this view see Showers, Maranatha, pp. 181-84.

[17] Showers, Maranatha, p. 182.

[18] Showers, Maranatha, pp. 182-83.

[19] For this prayer see Showers, Maranatha, p. 183.