Quick links to navigate the contents of this article:
Introduction
Context of John 14:2-3
Various Interpretations
Exposition of the Text
Conclusions Regarding Colman's View
Conclusions Regarding a Petribulational View
Conclusion
Bibliography
Endnotes
Introduction
The study of the timing of the rapture is a large task. The theologian needs to exegete many passages in order to synthesize the teaching of Scripture on the whole topic. John 14.2-3 is a passage that is used by many pretribulationists to support their position. John F. Walvoord says that the pretribulational understanding of John 14.2-3 is a “common understanding” [1] and a “clear passage”[2] for pretribulationism. He also refers to various posttribulational understandings as a “normal liberal interpretation,”[3] an “extraordinarily nonliteral interpretation,” and an “unusual understanding, strained.”[4] However, many other interpretations of John 14.2-3 have been offered. This paper will examine many of them.
The Context of John 14.2-3
John 14.2-3 offers a promise to the disciples. The promise comes just after Jesus exhorts them to stop being troubled in heart. He calls on them to believe in God and in Him. Why were their hearts troubled? In chapter 13, Jesus has just finished discussing with the disciples His departure from them – His death. He also tells them that one of them will betray Him and another will deny Him. The two who would commit these frightening acts are identified before the group. But, probably the disciples were all concerned that maybe they would also commit such an evil. They knew their frailty when they thought of the possibilities. So, Jesus with this promise in verses 2-3 seeks to give them comfort. [Back to contents.]
Various Interpretations
The pretribulational view sees Jesus’ promise centering on His rapture of the church before the Tribulation. Jesus gives comfort to the disciples by assuring them that He is going away to prepare a place for them in heaven. While it will be difficult for them to be without their friend and teacher, they should find comfort in knowing that it is in their best interest. Jesus assures them that there is plenty of room for each of them in heaven, otherwise He would have told them. They should also find comfort in knowing that just as sure as he goes to the Father, so He will also come back. And, when He comes back, He will personally take them to the place that He prepared for them.
A commonly asserted weakness of this view is that the last part of the promise “Where I am, there you may be also” cannot satisfactorily be fulfilled. According to the pretribulational view, believers will be raptured to heaven before the Tribulation. They will dwell there for 7 years until the time of the Second Coming, which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of Christ. If the intended purpose of the preparation were so that believers would dwell with Christ there, then how can a thousand-year vacation from heaven be explained?
It may be that the promise is still fulfilled because believers will never be separated from Christ. They will rule with Him in the millennial kingdom. But the stated purpose of Jesus going away and preparing a place is so that they will be able to dwell with Him there eternally.
Another difficulty with the pretribulational view is that the promise cannot really be fulfilled to the disciples. Did the disciples actually think that the rapture would occur before their deaths? Did Christ intend to communicate that the rapture would occur before their deaths? Would He have to communicate that in order for there to be any real hope given to the disciples?
J. Barton Payne, a postribulationist, argues in his book, The Imminent Appearing of Christ, that Christ here promises to return to each believer at the believer’s death in order to take that believer to heaven. Payne argues that the context speaks of preparation for death. Jesus has just spoken of his death, and so it would only be natural for the disciples to consider their own deaths. This would be why the disciples were troubled in heart. Also, Jesus has just spoken to the disciples about how they will need to follow Him in death (13.36, 37). So, Jesus gives a promise that ultimately gives hope to the disciples. When any believer dies, he does not have to fear eternal death because Jesus himself will come to take that believer to heaven.[5]
This view cannot be accepted because, the death of the believers is not the topic discussed between Jesus and His disciples. It is the death of Christ that has just been discussed. That would in and of itself surely distract them from thinking of their own deaths. Payne does not seem to take into consideration the other part of the context in 13.36,37. After Jesus speaks of the disciples’ following Him in death, He implies that Peter will not be one of them that follows him in death at that time. This would remove any pressure on any disciple to consider his own death.
Also, Jesus states in the promise that “I will come back and take you to be with me.” The pronoun, “you,” is plural which would not condone a promise for an individual.[6]
Robert Gundry offers an interpretation that would allow for either a pretribulational or a postribulational understanding, although he himself does not espouse this view. He intends to “help” the pretribulational view to “avoid the difficulty” of seeing a chronologically chopped up future for raptured saints, which he thinks hardly fulfills the promise that believers will be with Christ. This view says the promise is that Jesus will go away in order to prepare a place for believers. These places (or “mansions”) are in the New Jerusalem, which will descend from heaven at the beginning of the millennium. The posttribulationist would see this as a promise referring to the Second Coming, and the pretribulationist could understand this as a promise referring to either the Rapture or to the Second Coming. Gundry says that this view would help the pretribulational view because the promise that “where I am, there you may be also” is adequately fulfilled.[7] According to this view, believers will indeed be able to dwell eternally with Christ in the place that He has prepared for them. There have been pretribulationists that see the mansions to be in the New Jerusalem. Speaking of the New Jerusalem, Dwight Pentecost says, “Without a doubt this is the same place the Lord had in mind when” He gave the promise in John 14.2-3.[8] Paul Enns also agrees that “the New Jerusalem is the home Christ has gone to prepare.”[9]
This view assumes that the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven at the beginning of the millenium. Gundry says that this view only works for pretribulationism if the New Jerusalem is both a “millennial as well as an eternal city.”[10] If the New Jerusalem does not come down until after the Millennial Kingdom then no problems have been solved for the pretribulationist. There will still be a thousand-year period of time when the “place” prepared for them is vacated.[11]
Renald Showers, in his book, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! discusses a couple other views of this passage. He mentions the “Resurrection-of-Christ-view” which understands Jesus’ coming again to refer to His resurrection. It is obvious that Jesus’s going to the Father is His ascension. If His coming again is after His going to the Father, then that would mean that His resurrection follows His ascension. The Scriptures are clear that His ascension follows His resurrection.[12]
Showers’ mentions the “Coming-of-the-Holy Spirit-view” which sees Jesus’ promise to come again as fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This cannot be so because at the coming of Jesus, He will receive believers, but at the coming of the Spirit, believers will receive Him.[13]
Gundry offers another view, which he espouses. Gundry asserts that the promise pertains to the abiding place that each believer will have in Christ.[14] While this view would not contradict the general teaching of Scripture, it would rule out the pretribulational view of this passage.
According to Gundry’s view, Jesus’ going away refers to His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the Father. By His going to the Father, He is preparing an “abiding place” for each of them. Jesus will come again to accept each of them into his presence, never to be separated again. Then, because Christ has done His work, believers have a place in the Father’s household. Also, being “in Christ” gives believers a “way” to the Father.[15]
An interpretive paraphrase according to Gundry’s understanding of John 14.2-3 might read this way,
In my Father’s household, there is plenty of room for you; if that were not the case I would have told you; for I am going to do the spiritual preparation[16] of dying, rising again, and ascending to the Father, which is required for you to have a place in God’s household. And, if I go to the Father, then I will come again to you and receive you into my presence so that where I am (in the Father) there you will be also.
Gundry says that his interpretation assumes a legitimate understanding of each of the Greek words, and it seems to fit the larger context better than the pretribulational understanding as it contributes to the “abiding” and “in Christ” themes in John 14-15[17] and other Johannine literature.[18]
Walvoord says that Gundry spiritualizes the text in order to come up with this interpretation. He says that Gundry offers no “proof or any evidence in the context.” Then Walvoord simply states that the passages is not talking about “Christ’s indwelling the believer but rather the believer being in the same place as Christ Himself, that is, in the Father’s house.”[19] It is obvious that Walvoord is not truly responding to Gundry’s argument. Walvoord would need to show how Gundry is spiritualizing the text, and he would have to show how Gundry’s view does not suit the context.
Others have offered arguments against Gundry’s view. John Sproule says that Gundry’s view is somewhat confusing because he is not as specific as he should be. Sproule says that Gundry implies that the disciples have a different spiritual condition after Christ’s death than before Christ’s death. Were the disciples “in Christ” before Christ’s death? If they were “in Christ” then why would Christ need to go through all the work to “prepare a place” in His own person?[20] Sproule brings up an interesting point. It does not seem thought that Gundry’s view would require that the disciples were not “in Christ” before Christ’s death. Surely Sproule would say that before the death of Christ the disciples possessed eternal life having had their sin paid for by the blood of Christ even though He had not actually died yet. It seems as though it would be the same for their union with Christ. They were united with Christ in anticipation of Christ’s work. Even though the disciples were “in Christ” before Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, yet Christ still had to accomplish these things. Sproule’s argument does not seem to hold up. But, Sproule does offer another. He says that Gundry misses the emphasis of the passage. Christ was not emphasizing His death, but His work in heaven. He was going to heaven to prepare a place. In fact, says Sproule, Jesus even avoids talking about the painful subject of His death even though that is the pathway to the Father.[21] Sproule assumes though that the purpose clause, “to prepare a place,” must be completed in heaven. All the verse says is that the purpose of Christ’s going, is to prepare a place. It could be that the preparation could be done in the going itself.[22] Maybe Sproule’s point could be better stated by saying that the emphasis of the passage is on the results of Christ’s work that are realized in heaven rather than the work done by Christ to effect something for the disciples.
D. A. Carson says that Gundry’s view rests on an unlikely meaning of the Greek word for “rooms.” Carson says the word is literally, “dwelling places.” Because the word describes a dwelling place in the Father’s house, it is better understood as “rooms.” Gundry is assuming the word in verse 2 means the same as the word in 4.23. This is a faulty assumption.[23] The context is important in determining which meaning the word carries. Gundry has considered a context, but not the closest context, in verse 2. In fact, he has assumed that the referent of the “dwelling place” in verse 23 is the same as that found in verse 2.[24]
Gundry certainly has not spiritualized the text. He has chosen a meaning, which is within the semantic range of the word, but it is probably true that the meaning he chose fits his theology better than it fits the immediate context.
Another view of this passage has been offered by David Colman in the form of a Th.M. thesis. Colman’s view is best seen in his expanded paraphrase of John 14.2-3:
Continue to trust in me though I am departing from you in terms of a visible manifestation. There is plenty of room in Heaven for you (You know I would have told you if that were not the case) because I’m departing to die, rise again and ascend to my Father thus providing you with the opportunity to enjoy salvation.
Since I am departing to do all this, I will come back again, though not physically at this time, and I will take you into a fellowship with myself so that we can be together from that time forward.[25]
According to this view, Jesus’ comfort is meant only for the disciples. Jesus is promising to come to the disciples after His ascension in order that they may be in fellowship with Him forever. Jesus must die, rise again, and ascend to heaven in order to provide a way for the disciples to have this intimate fellowship with Christ.
Colman says that this understanding best suits the context. The disciples are most concerned with being close to Jesus. They want to have intimate fellowship with Him. In fact, Peter said he would be willing to die in order that he might be with Jesus. With Colman’s view, the disciples are given a promise that would give them hope concerning their greatest desire – fellowship with Christ. Colman says that the promise is not stated principally as are statements in other rapture passages. He illustrates his point with Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians. Colmans says rapture passages contain “statements like ‘when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed’ (2 Thess 1:7) not ‘I am coming back to receive you.’[26] John 14 seems to be more personal. Colman also says that the disciples were more concerned with being with Jesus on earth rather than in heaven. They were more earthly minded than heavenly minded. The promise that would encourage them would not be a dwelling in heaven, but a reunion with Christ on earth.[27] Another significant strength of this view as Colman sees it is that it allows Jesus’ promise to be legitimate for the disciples. As was noted earlier, Jesus’ words were meant for comfort, first and foremost, for the disciples. If Jesus wanted to give them comfort, why would He promise them a reunion that was more than 1900 years away (the rapture), after they had already died? Jesus had to be speaking of something that would take place within the lifetime of the disciples.[28]
Colman’s view seems to respond to some thoughts that have typically not been considered: How is the promise a comfort to the 11 disciples specifically? What was it that the disciples wanted most of all? How is the promise stated, principally, or specifically? While it might appear as though Colman has answered all of the right questions, he has made some decisions regarding word meanings and phrase meanings that are unlikely. These exegetical decisions will now be considered.[Back to contents.]
Exposition of the Text
“My Father’s house”
Scholars generally agree upon the meaning of this phrase. It is the place where God dwells. It is heaven.[29]
“Many mansions”
The Greek word means “dwelling-places.” The King James Version has “mansions” which was introduced by Tyndale. “Mansions” has a different connotation than it did in Tyndale’s time. Today it carries the idea of a palace. That is not the intended meaning though. A dwelling-place that is in a house should best be understood as a room, or a suite. It is a permanent, literal place.[30] Jesus employs the word “many” in order to assure the disciples that there is plenty of room for them.
“I am going”
This verb is in the present tense, but it is speaking of an action in the future. Jesus uses the future tense to communicate the certainty of the action.[31] Included in Jesus’ “going,” are His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (and all the events associated with each). Those are the things that are necessary in order for Him to go to the Father.[32]
“To prepare a place”
“Prepare” can also be understood as “make ready” or “furnish.” This is an infinitive of purpose.[33] The purpose of His going is “to prepare a place.” The purpose of the going could be accomplished in heaven on in going to heaven. Colman probably goes a step too far when he says, “The purpose of preparing could certainly be accomplished prior to arrival in heaven and still be compatible with the language found here.”[34] If the purpose could be accomplished before He gets to heaven then, it might not be necessary to go to heaven. But, it is necessary that He go to heaven. He says so. The preparation cannot be accomplished in His death, burial, and resurrection alone.
Colman accepts an unlikely meaning for the word translated “place.” He says that it is usually translated “place, region,” but there are 4 occasions (out of 80!) where it is used metaphorically to mean “opportunity” or “opening.”[35] While Colman says that this understanding is a possibility, he does say it is “rather remote.”[36] He ends up choosing the remote possibility because he thinks it best suits the context. Colman’s decision concerning the meaning of “place” as “opportunity” is similar to Gundry’s decision concerning the meaning of “rooms.” To determine the meaning of “place” the immediate context should bear the most weight. Because it is in the context of a house and a dwelling place in that house, “place” should be best understood as a location. Not only does this understanding compliment the house-room theme, but it certainly has much stronger support from NT usage.
“And if I go”
The “if” does not call into question Jesus’ going; it points to a consequence that is sure to follow. The “if” is not a “when.” “Jesus does not intend to indicate the time of His return, but the consequence of His departure.”[37]
“I will come again”
This is the first part of the consequence of 1.) Jesus’ going to the Father and 2.) His preparing a place. “Again” means His coming will be either the same, or similar to, a previous coming.[38] Probably, this at least means that His coming again will be physical. This does not fit well with either Gundry’s or Colman’s views.
“And receive you to Myself”
“Receive” (Paralambanein) is a compound verb with lambanein meaning “to take, receive,” and the prefix, para, which works to “strengthen or enlarge the basic meaning” of lambanein. So, the compound verb, Paralambanein, means, “to take someone with oneself, to choose out from a large number, offer fellowship to a chosen one or introduce a particular plan.”[39] John Sproule says it has the “meaning of taking someone to oneself in an intimate, loving fellowship relationship.”[40]
“To Myself” completes the thought. Raymond Brown says that the phrase could be understood as “take along with me to my home” since the word for “to” with a reflexive pronoun can convey that meaning. John 20.10 demonstrates this.[41] “To my home” is not a required translation, but it is a possible one.
“In order that where I am, you also may be”
“In order that” tells the purpose of the coming again and receiving. Why will Jesus come again and take them to Himself in an intimate, loving fellowship relationship? In order that “where I am, you also may be.”
Conclusions regarding Colman’s view
It has been noted that Colman’s view pays careful attention to the fact that the promise is comfort to the disciples. It also guards against being too quick to make improper application to believers today. But, there are notable weaknesses. Colman depends upon an unlikely rendering of the word, “place”. Also, he does not give proper attention to the word, “again,” in Jesus’ promise to come again.
Conclusions regarding a pretribulational view
The pretribulational view seems to work well grammatically. With each word used by Jesus, the pretribulational view attributes to it a well-attested meaning, unlike Gundry’s and Colman’s views. Also, each word-meaning fits well within the immediate context.
What about the difficulty of fulfilling the purpose of the “coming” and “receiving”: “in order that where I am, you also may be?” Is it a problem if believers are raptured only to spend 7 years in heaven and then to vacate heaven for a thousand-year reign on the earth? While another view may sound more “smooth” in this regard, an adequate answer can be given for pretribulationism. The place in heaven is designed to accomplish fellowship between Christ and believers. Even if believers stay there for only 7 years, the purpose is still met.[42]
The last difficulty to consider is how the promise of a rapture could be intended for or could come as comfort to the disciples. Perhaps the fact that the rapture would be seen as imminent could explain the legitimacy.[43] Assuming the truth of pretribulationism the rapture is promised to believers, yet many believers will not be one of the “alive in Christ” to experience it. Yet, the promise still holds true. In the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus mentions some things that He purposes to accomplish for the benefit of all believers even though it is spoken specifically to the disciples.[44] So, the promise concerning the rapture, although spoken specifically to the disciples, could have been intended as a promise for all believers. It is comforting to the disciples because it lets them know that Jesus’ work is necessary and that He is doing work that will benefit them personally (by providing each of them eternal fellowship with Christ).[Back to contents.]
Conclusion
The best view, although not without difficulty, is that of pretribulationism. The grammatical and exegetical support is certainly stronger than that of other views. However, there needs to be more time spent in synthesizing the promise with the chapter before and after it. Most of the work done by pretribulationalists seems to isolate 14.2-3 from chapters 13,14, and 15 with the exception of a few simple remarks.
May God give us grace to handle His Word with accuracy, diligence, and humility.[Back to contents.]
Bibliography
Amerding, Carl. “That Blessed Hope.” BSac. V111 #442 (April 1954): 149-158.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John, Second Editon. WBC. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, vol. 2. Anchor Bible, ed. by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1970.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Colman, David F. “An Examination and Possible Interpretation of John 14:2-3.” Th.M. Thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1982.
Edgar, Thomas R. “An Exegesis of Rapture Passages” in Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of Postribulationism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
Hendriksen, William. The Gospel of John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL, 1993.
Laney, J. Carl. John. Moody Gospel Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
Lange, John Peter. The Gospel According to John. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. III, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943.
Mayhue, Richard. Snatched Before the Storm! A Case for Pretribulationalism. Sun Valley, CA: Grace Books International, 2001.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1992.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1964.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1932.
Rosscup, James E. “New Jerusalem.” ZPEB, 4:416-417. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Showers, Renald. Maranatha Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture and the Church. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1995.
Siede, Burghard, “lambanw,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol III, Colin Brown, gen. ed., trans. And ed. By Lothar Coenan, et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978, 751.
Sproule, John A. “An Exegetical Defense of Pretribulationalism.” Th.D. Dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1981.
Stanton, Gerald B. Kept From the Hour: Biblical Evidence for the Pretribulational Return of Christ. Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Co., Inc., 1991.
Tenney, Merrill C. “John.” In the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. Gaebelein, 9:3-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Walvoord, John F. The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. [Back to contents.]
[1] John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 194. [click here to go back up.]
[2] Ibid, 195.[click here to go back up.]
[3] This is his description of J. Barton Payne’s view.[click here to go back up.]
[4] This is his description of Robert Gundry’s view.[click here to go back up.]
[5] Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 152.[click here to go back up.]
[6] Unless the disciples were expected to die at the same time and at the same place.[click here to go back up.]
[7] Gundry, Tribulation,153.[click here to go back up.]
[8] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1964), 575. Pentecost views the New Jerusalem as hovering over the earth during the Millennial Kingdom. He says that some people that rule with Christ have spiritual bodies and they are dwelling in the New Jerusalem. Others have physical bodies and they dwell on earth. See 580 for a summary of his position.[click here to go back up.]
[9] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 373. Enns understands the New Jerusalem to descend from heaven after the Millenium. See ibid.[click here to go back up.]
[10] Gundry, Tribulation, 153.[click here to go back up.]
[11] This writer understands the New Jerusalem to come down after the Millennial Kingdom because the chronology in Revelation 21 dictates it. So, this writer sees the “mansions-in-the-New Jerusalem” idea irrelevant. [click here to go back up.]
[12] Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture and the Church (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995), 160.[click here to go back up.]
[13] Ibid.[click here to go back up.]
[14] Gundry, Tribulation, 154.[click here to go back up.]
[15] Gundry, Tribulation, 155.[click here to go back up.]
[16] Gundry says that the word for “prepare” often has a spiritual connotation. He references Mt. 3.3 (John the Baptist preparing the way of the Lord); 25.34 (the kingdom is said to be “prepared for you from the foundation of the world”).[click here to go back up.]
[17] Gundry references the Father abiding in Christ (John 14.10), the Spirit abiding in believers (14.17), the believer abiding in Christ (15.4, 6, 7) 155.[click here to go back up.]
[18] Gundry references John 6.5-6; 1 John 2.6, 10, 14, 24, 27, 28; 3.6, 9, 17, 24; 4.12, 13, 15, 16. See Gundry, Tribulation, 155.[click here to go back up.]
[19] Walvoord, Rapture Question, 194-95.[click here to go back up.]
[20] John A. Sproule, “An Exegetical Defense of Pretribulationism,” Th.D. Dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1981, 172-173.[click here to go back up.]
[21] Ibid., 173.[click here to go back up.]
[22] David F. Colman, “An Examination and Possible Interpretation of John 14:2-3,” Th. M. Thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1982, 37.[click here to go back up.]
[23] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John. PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 488-489.[click here to go back up.]
[24] Ibid., 489.[click here to go back up.]
[25] Colman, “John 14:2-3,” 59.[click here to go back up.]
[26] Ibid., 43.[click here to go back up.]
[27] Ibid., 42-43.[click here to go back up.]
[28] Ibid., 43.[click here to go back up.]
[29] For further discussion see Carson, John, 488-489.[click here to go back up.]
[30] Ibid.[click here to go back up.]
[31] Ibid., 36.[click here to go back up.]
[32] Ibid.[click here to go back up.]
[33] Sproule, “Pretribulationism,” 173.[click here to go back up.]
[34] Colman, “John 14:2-3,” 37.[click here to go back up.]
[35] Ibid., 38.[click here to go back up.]
[36] Ibid.[click here to go back up.]
[37] John Peter Lange, The Gospel According to John. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. III, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 436.[click here to go back up.]
[38] Showers, Maranatha, 157.[click here to go back up.]
[39] Burghard Siede, “lambanw,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol III, Colin Brown, gen. ed., trans. And ed. By Lothar Coenan, et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 751.[click here to go back up.]
[40] Sproule, Pretribulationism, 170.[click here to go back up.]
[41] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, vol. 2, Anchor Bible, ed. By William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1970), 620.[click here to go back up.]
[42] A similar promise is given in 1 Thessalonians 4.17 which says, “and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” This statement is not made as an expressed purpose of the preparation of a place. It is given in a list of chronological events. From the time of the rapture, the believer will ever be with the Lord.[click here to go back up.]
[43] It is probably better to understand the doctrine of imminency as a logical result of pretribulationism. See Richard Mayhue, Snatched Before the Storm! A Case for Pretribulationism (Sun Valley, CA: Grace Books International, 2001) 3-4. It is not arguing in a circle to explain a proposed difficulty to pretribulationalism with a doctrine which has itself resulted from it because it demonstrates internal consistency of the view.[click here to go back up.]
[44] John 14.16 contains the promise of a Comforter. The promise is blessing to all believers, and yet the promise is pronounced as if only the disciple will experience the blessing.[click here to go back up.]
[Back to contents.]
