Some Thoughts About the End-Times
Image
Several months ago, the teens at church asked three questions during Sunday School as the teacher covered 2 Thessalonians 2, and I wrote up a brief response to augment the teacher’s answers. These were their questions:
- Was Old Testament salvation by faith, or by works?
- Did the Holy Spirit indwell believers in the Old Testament?
- Will the Holy Spirit indwell believers during the Tribulation?
I love both letters to the Thessalonians. I especially love 2 Thessalonians 2, because it gives such a clear skeleton outline of eschatology. Here’s what I wrote to them …
In order to answer these, and to understand why these questions even came up in 2 Thessalonians 2:6, you need to read the passage. It’s probably the clearest chronological account of what will happen in the end-times. Read it and see for yourself!
Paul was reassuring the Christians in Thessalonica that they shouldn’t pay attention to silly and ridiculous teachings about the end-times. Even back then, people were running around concocting all kinds of weird speculations about the end of days! So, Paul wanted to set them straight (2 Thess 2:1-2). Here is the order of events the passage gives us:
1: Jesus won’t come back and judge the world until the great rebellion against God comes first (2 Thess 2:4).
Specifically, a “man of lawlessness” will come onto the world stage. This man will be a “son of destruction.” The “lawlessness” and “destruction” are characteristics of this man; he epitomizes lawlessness and rebellion against God and he destroys all that’s good and holy. Jesus won’t come back until this guy appears first.
2: This evil guy will “oppose and exalt himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God,” (2 Thess 2:4).
This man will have a reverse Messiah complex; He’s Jesus’ counterpart from the “dark side,” so to speak. In short, this man is the Antichrist.
3: Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he already told them this, when he was with them (2 Thess 2:5). Why are they getting so confused!?
It’s clear that people have always wanted to know about the end-times, and teachers have always had to preach and teach about it!
4: Something is restraining this evil man from appearing now, “so that he may be revealed in his time,” (2 Thess 2:6). And “he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way,” (2 Thess 2:7).
What is this restraint? What or who can possibly restrain the forces and cultural conditions necessary for people around the world to want and accept what the Antichrist will be offering? Bear in mind that the Antichrist will be offering a world system opposed to God; in fact, he’ll offer himself as a secular alternative to God. There’s something in our culture, right now, that’s “holding back” or “restraining” people from embracing this alternative. What could it possibly be?
It’s likely the Holy Spirit.
But, what means is the Spirit using to restrain the world culture from accepting a wholehearted secularism? It seems natural He’s using people’s consciences, God-honoring laws and social mores, and more. There are cultural pockets in this world that have embraced secularism – especially in the West. But, there are many more that haven’t.
If we’re right about the Holy Spirit being the “restrainer,” then what does it mean that He’ll eventually be “out of the way?” It seems to mean that the Spirit will stop restraining evil in the world, the doors will open, and a flood of wickedness and secularism will drown the entire world – to a much greater extent than it does right now. Then the cultural conditions and secular mindsets will be in place to accept a world system explicitly predicated on hatred and opposition to the Christian God.
Pretend you’re holding a door closed, while someone is trying to push his way through from the other side. After a while, you step away from the door and let the person crash through into the room. The Holy Spirit is the one holding the door. The Antichrist and his philosophy are trying to push through. One day, the Spirit will simply step aside and let him come in.
5: The Antichrist will be revealed, and Jesus will return (Rev 19) and kill him (2 Thess 2:8).
6: The Antichrist is a tool of Satan, who seduces people to a secular world system “because they refused to love the truth and so be saved,” (2 Thess 2:9-10).
In fact, because they don’t love Him, God will even send them a delusion so they’ll believe the Antichrist, when he comes (2 Thess 2:11-12).
So, now that we’ve got that out of the way, here are the answers to the three original questions:
Was Old Testament salvation by faith, or by works?
It was by faith. The idea of “having faith” or to “believe the Gospel” means to put trust or allegiance in Jesus and His message. It doesn’t mean a mental leap into the dark, or deliberately believing something you know can’t be true. Read Galatians 3-4, where Paul answers the question directly. The idea that the Old Covenant saints were saved by works is a legacy of a bad form of Bible interpretation. The Scofield Reference Bible was perhaps the best-selling study Bible of the 20th century. Unfortunately, it suggested that Old Covenant believers were saved by works, and New Covenant believers were saved by grace.1 This is wrong. For the truth, see especially Jesus’ interpretation of the Mosaic Law (Mk 12:28-32), where He taught the essence of the law was obedience based on love for Him.
The Scofield study Bible, and one strand of the theological system that accompanied it, has influenced countless Christians to believe false things about Old Covenant life and practice. I think the original Scofield bible notes are dangerous.
If a believer in any age really loves God, she’ll prove it by actions. Those actions will look a bit different, depending on when you’re alive. Abraham didn’t have the Mosaic law, so his form of loving obedience looked a bit different than David’s. Likewise, our life looks a bit different than Ezekiel’s. But, at the heart of all of it is this fact – if you love God, you’ll keep His commandments. It’s always been that way.
Did the Holy Spirit indwell believers in the Old Testament?
Yes; why wouldn’t He? See the oodles of passages which talk about people “circumcising” their hearts (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4, etc.). What does it mean to “circumcise your heart?” It’s clearly figurative:
- just as external circumcision is an external mark that shows a boy belongs to God’s covenant family
- internal circumcision is an internal mark on your heart to show that you belong to God’s family
Can you make your heart belong to God? Of course not; God has to do something to your heart and mind first! In essence, “circumcise your heart” means “you must be born again!” It means spiritual birth. You have spiritual birth by believing in God’s promises about the Messiah.
Will the Holy Spirit indwell believers during the Tribulation?
Yes, why wouldn’t He?2 This is only a valid question if you assume 2 Thessalonians 2:6 means the Holy Spirit leaves this world and goes back to heaven to hang out. This is wrong, and that means this question is based on a bad assumption.
Notes
1 1917 Scofield note at Gen 12:1: “Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Ex 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.”
Note at John 1:17: “[Grace] is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Ro 3:21; 8:4; Phm 1:25. Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith Joh 1:17; Ro 10:4-10. Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad Ex 19:5; Eph 2:1-9. Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift De 28:1-6; Eph 2:8; Ro 4:4-5. As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Ro 3:24-26; 4:24-25. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.”
2 See especially Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 3 vols. (Detroit: DBTS, 2009), 2:267-289. No, I didn’t give the poor teenagers this footnote …
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 56 views
You know I’ve heard about Scofield’s 2 ways of salvation teaching for years, but only ever from his detractors. Does anyone know of any dispensationalist who actually taught that OT saints were saved by works?
Never heard anyone teach it. But, have always seen Christians very confused by it. The footnote above has some gems from Scofield.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[pvawter]You know I’ve heard about Scofield’s 2 ways of salvation teaching for years, but only ever from his detractors. Does anyone know of any dispensationalist who actually taught that OT saints were saved by works?
Peter Ruckman taught this including his proclamation that those who remained after the rapture would have to be saved “the way people were saved in the Old Testament–by faith AND keeping the Law.” I’ve also heard at least one of his followers saying the same thing.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I’ve also heard a lot of confusing rhetoric about “law” and “grace,” implying that there was basically no grace in Old Testament times and that there is no law now.
In part, this thinking comes from misunderstanding passages like these:
- Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
- Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
- Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
It would make for a long post to unpack these passages, but they do not teach that “there was once a time when everyone related to God through law and that time has now passed and we relate to Him today through grace.”
The really short version of what they do mean is …
- All grace in all times has come through Christ
- Law in the sense of “the standard of God’s righteousness” condemns us all until we are “in Christ.” At that point, it no longer condemns us and we are “not under law” but “under grace.” In other words, grace has triumphed over the condemnation that law brings (See also Rom. 8:1ff). This was also true of OT saints who entered into relationship with God the Abrahamic way, through faith. (Gal. 3:15-17 is especially helpful for sorting this out.)
- Rom. 10:4 is not saying that law-keeping ever was “for righteousness,” but (I think) that vain attempts to become righteous by that route are ended in Christ. This was also true in OT times whenever believers entered into genuine relationship with God through faith. (The passage may also mean that Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness… I have more study to do, but I’m quite confident of what the verse does not mean.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ron Bean]Peter Ruckman taught this including his proclamation that those who remained after the rapture would have to be saved “the way people were saved in the Old Testament–by faith AND keeping the Law.” I’ve also heard at least one of his followers saying the same thing.
Never followed Ruckman. Guess that would explain why I didn’t know he taught this. Did he credit Scofield as the source of his view?
[TylerR]Never heard anyone teach it. But, have always seen Christians very confused by it. The footnote above has some gems from Scofield.
Yeah, well, those gems are obviously a tiny fraction of his writing on the subject. I used the Scofield Reference Bible from age 13 until at least my mid-20s and never came away with the idea of salvation by law-keeping in the OT. Now if he’d argued for a covenant of works in the garden, that might have been a different story.
[Aaron Blumer]I’ve also heard a lot of confusing rhetoric about “law” and “grace,” implying that there was basically no grace in Old Testament times and that there is no law now.
In part, this thinking comes from misunderstanding passages like these:
- Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
- Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
- Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
It would make for a long post to unpack these passages, but they do not teach that “there was once a time when everyone related to God through law and that time has now passed and we relate to Him today through grace.”
The really short version of what they do mean is …
- All grace in all times has come through Christ
- Law in the sense of “the standard of God’s righteousness” condemns us all until we are “in Christ.” At that point, it no longer condemns us and we are “not under law” but “under grace.” In other words, grace has triumphed over the condemnation that law brings (See also Rom. 8:1ff). This was also true of OT saints who entered into relationship with God the Abrahamic way, through faith. (Gal. 3:15-17 is especially helpful for sorting this out.)
- Rom. 10:4 is not saying that law-keeping ever was “for righteousness,” but (I think) that vain attempts to become righteous by that route are ended in Christ. This was also true in OT times whenever believers entered into genuine relationship with God through faith. (The passage may also mean that Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness… I have more study to do, but I’m quite confident of what the verse does not mean.)
There seems to be plenty of confusion to go around about law and grace in every theological tradition.
Tyler, your points 1 & 3 I agree with, but I would disagree with point two:
Did the Holy Spirit indwell believers in the Old Testament?
Yes; why wouldn’t He? See the oodles of passages which talk about people “circumcising” their hearts (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4, etc.). What does it mean to “circumcise your heart?” It’s clearly figurative:
- just as external circumcision is an external mark that shows a boy belongs to God’s covenant family
- internal circumcision is an internal mark on your heart to show that you belong to God’s family
Can you make your heart belong to God? Of course not; God has to do something to your heart and mind first! In essence, “circumcise your heart” means “you must be born again!” It means spiritual birth. You have spiritual birth by believing in God’s promises about the Messiah.
To equate “circumcision of the heart” with “indwelling of the Spirit” is a massive leap in my mind (I’m not even sure I’m convinced that “heart circumcision” is 100% equal to “born again,” but that sidetracks the discussion here).
I would say the Spirit did come upon people (not necessarily even just believers; e.g. Num 11:25, 24:2, 1 Sam 10:10 [NOTE: 1 Sam 10:9 is a heart change in Saul, but the Spirit did not come upon him until after that heart change, which at least shows that a heart change was distinct from Spirit’s direct activity of coming upon OT people] , and various other passages). But I would submit the following as at least some of the points arguing that OT believers were not indwelled:
- The Bible explicitly states the Spirit had not come because Christ needed to first be glorified (Jn 7:39); so this directly answers your “Why wouldn’t he?” question (though opposite of your “yes” answer). It also states later He “will be in you” (future tense, Jn 14:17; at the time He was just dwelling “with” them).
- If the Spirit was already indwelling believers in the OT, then at least some (if not all) of the 11 faithful disciples would have already had the Spirit indwelling them prior to ever meeting Christ, for there is every indication that at least some of them were already faithful Jews keeping their eyes open for the Messiah and believing Jesus was him (Jn 1:41). And even if not considered faithful before, at least after meeting Christ, they were believing he was the Messiah, so the Spirit would have come then (Mt 16:16). It makes no sense that the Spirit still had to come (per #1 verses) or that they needed to be expecting to receive the Spirit from Christ (Jn 20:22; Act 1:8, 2:4, 2:33) if the Spirit was already indwelling them as OT believers.
- In accord with Jn 7:39, the Spirit’s indwelling appears to be a post-incarnation/crucifixion/glorification of Christ mark of belonging to Christ (Rom 8:9-11), and is what makes Christ’s body (the church) the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16), distinct from God dwelling in the tabernacle and temple in the OT (2 Sam 7:5-6 [cf. Exo 40:34] ).
To me, those are all significant reasons to believe that an “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit was not part of the OT believers experience.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
Appreciate it. DT has a tradition that is skeptical of OT indwelling. McCune changed my mind (see footnote), and Leon Wood wrote a book on the Holy Spirit and the OT, as well. Didnt want to go into it, here. Neither did teens!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Probably the most concise thing I could say is that, if we could leave system labels aside, it depends how much continuity and discontinuity you see between the OC and NC salvation and motivation for service. I see greater continuity than most DT guys.
I believe many DT pastors are tied up in knots by about the relationship between law and grace, because the answers they learned are extremely confusing. I personally found Houghton’s book (and McClain’s) incoherent and extraordinarily confusing. I’ve read it three times. Likewise, Strickland’s contribution to Zondervan’s “Four Views on Law and Gospel” was also incoherent, in my opinion.
I’ve seen many Christians confused by this. I understand many will disagree here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[pvawter]Never followed Ruckman. Guess that would explain why I didn’t know he taught this. Did he credit Scofield as the source of his view?
Ruckman didn’t credit anyone with anything!!! Among his endtime oddities were that, at the rapture, believers would leave behind piles of blood and skin because “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” (He had cartoon illustrations!), and that all believers would be 33 year old males because “we shall be like Him”.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Ruckman didn’t credit anyone with anything!!! Among his endtime oddities were that, at the rapture, believers would leave behind piles of blood and skin because “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” (He had cartoon illustrations!), and that all believers would be 33 year old males because “we shall be like Him”.
So Ruckman would not be what anyone would call a “mainstream” dispy. That still leaves me scratching my head about Tyler’s warning that Scofield’s notes are dangerous if no serious dispys taught 2 ways of salvation.
[TylerR]Probably the most concise thing I could say is that, if we could leave system labels aside, it depends how much continuity and discontinuity you see between the OC and NC salvation and motivation for service. I see greater continuity than most DT guys.
I believe many DT pastors are tied up in knots by about the relationship between law and grace, because the answers they learned are extremely confusing. I personally found Houghton’s book (and McClain’s) incoherent and extraordinarily confusing. I’ve read it three times. Likewise, Strickland’s contribution to Zondervan’s “Four Views on Law and Gospel” was also incoherent, in my opinion.
I’ve seen many Christians confused by this. I understand many will disagree here.
I recall finding Houghton’s book generally helpful, but I don’t remember any specifics at the moment. Do you have any specific dispy pastors in mind whose teaching on law and grace you find especially tied up in knots?
[pvawter]So Ruckman would not be what anyone would call a “mainstream” dispy. That still leaves me scratching my head about Tyler’s warning that Scofield’s notes are dangerous if no serious dispys taught 2 ways of salvation.
We were in a ministry that is still in existence that was strongly pro-Scofield and still is. They would properly be labeled hyper-dispensational but would deny it and use the Scofield notes to prove it. A key for them was seeing Acts as a transitional book and largely ignored (even though the Epistles were written DURING the time of Acts). This resulted in essentially ignoring baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and formal church membership. A drastic view of the difference between israel and the Church that included that the wife and the Bride were two totally separate entities, that OT saints were in no way “in Christ”. Add to that their conclusion that the Gospels were part of the Old Testament because the Dispensation of Grace didn’t begin until after the resurrection. I could go on.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[TylerR]Appreciate it. DT has a tradition that is skeptical of OT indwelling. McCune changed my mind (see footnote), and Leon Wood wrote a book on the Holy Spirit and the OT, as well. Didnt want to go into it, here. Neither did teens!
I’m unconvinced by McCune on a number of points he makes, but will respect not wanting “to go into it, here” (even though it was one of the three major points of your post).
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
Discussion