blaising, Hultberg, Moo

[RandyK]

I was asked, if I wanted to discuss the Rapture and its controversies, to read "The Rapture Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Postribulation." This book shares the 3 viewpoints indicated, and I've read it, taken notes, and made comments. I still have to digest some of the material, but I'll begin with Blaising's Pretrib view.

Much of what Blaising believes is predicated on his unique view of the relationship between historical prophetic fulfillment and the Parousia (Coming of Christ). He believes OT prophecies of Antiochus 4 and the destruction of Jerusalem were deliberately given with an eschatological flavor, to present an eschatological sense of the imminence of Chtrist's Coming and Kingdom. At least that's how I read him here...

pg 40 "The point of this study is that in the 1st part of the Olivet Discourse ...Jesus gives a pattern that includes the sign of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. This pattern has as its structure Daniel's time of the end, and it carries the descriptive features of the day of the Lord. It is, in fact, this integrated day of the Lord, time of the end pattern that constitutes the contribution of the Olivet Discourse to the development of biblical eschatology."

What Blaising is doing is interpreting historical events as connected to eschatological realities, when it may actually only be a matter of his own interpretation. He just makes the assumption because this is a common view held by many of the competing positions.

But this belies other avenues that have been explored in the past--views that are now being overlooked by views that bypass them with their own biases. I believe that historical prophecies were *not* given, implicitly, in an eschatological context, but only with a view to aiming in that direction, ultimately. That is, prophecies fulfilled in history, like the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, were not intended to "look endtime," but actually, to lead to it via the long road of the Jewish Diaspora.

Here is what Blaising says, regarding his sense of an "eschatological" history...

1) pg. 50 "the whole day is the day of his coming."
2) pg. 51 "his appearing is near in accordance with the well-known pattern that has been revealed about that coming."
3) pg. 53 "Furthermore, Paul focuses on the coming, the onset, the beginning of the day of the Lord by drawing upon Jesus' own teaching about the onset of the day as a whole in the 2nd part of the Olivet Discourse and by referencing the beginning of the day of the Lord with Jesus' own description of that beginning in the 1st part of the Olivet Discourse. In other words, Paul is speaking of the 7-year tribulation--the 70th week of Daniel--when he speaks of the day of the Lord in 1 Thess. 5. And he is speaking of the onset, the beginning of this tribulation as coming suddenly, without warning..."
4) pg. 54 "in the preceding discussion of both 1 Thess. 4-5 and the Olivet Discourse, the expression Parousia is not used merely of the visible descent but of the day of the Lord as a whole, of which the visible descent is the culmination."
5) pg. 54 "The sequential pattern that Paul gives begins with an apostasy" and the revelation of a "man of lawlessness," who is described by means of a citation from Dan 11.36... ...this temple blasphemy corresponding to and apparently interpreting the abomination of desolation in Daniel's 70th week and in the Olivet Discourse."
6) pg. 56 "Whatever the apostasy refers to, the activity of the Man of Lawlessness presented here actually belongs to the integrated day of the Lord. .. The coming of the day of the Lord in both the Olivet Discourse and in 1 Thess. 5 is without signs, without warning."

I will end with this for now. But it should be apparent that Blaising appears to confuse the Day of the Lord by changing it from the *day that Christ comes back" to an extended era, including the Signs of the Olivet Discourse, the Seals of the book of Revelation, a Pretrib Rapture, the AoD/Antichristian Reign, and the 2nd Coming. This hardly seems cogent.

He thinks that Jesus meant to instill an awareness that he could return imminently when he listed various signs that lead to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and reinterpreted them as *signs of imminence.* But I think he was quite literally giving signs of warning that presaged the imminent fall of Jerusalem on behalf of his Disciples who would see it.

The prophecy of Daniel 9 spoke of this very time of Jerusalem's fall to the Romans, and could not have been presaging the end of the age. Jesus was asked 2 questions, and not just 1. He was asked about both the fall of Jerusalem and his Return. They should not be mixed together.

And so, Jesus separated from his prediction of the fall of Jerusalem his 2nd Coming by inserting the need to preach the Gospel to all nations and by stating that following the fall of Jerusalem Israel would go into exile for the rest of the age (the Jewish Diaspora). This fall of Israel would mean homelessness for the Jewish Church, as well, since they would lose their homeland along with unbelieving Jews who were actually the targets of God's Wrath.

Enough for now...

 

[RandyK]

Page 2

As I've been saying, Blaising stretches the meaning of the "Day of the Lord" to include much more than the single day of Christ's Return. Instead, it is based on the notion that historical prophecies intentionally have an eschatological flair, and attempt to instill in readers a sense of imminent expectation. This anxious expectation is associated with a private revelation, instigated by the events designed to herald its beginning.

8) pg. 59 "The question is whether this seal-breaking series presents the day of the Lord as occurring subsequent to the tribulational events of the 1st 5 seal visions or whether all of these events are meant to be taken as the day of the Lord. 3 considerations support the latter view... The 1st is the parallel between the elements of John's seal visions and the early elements of Jesus' Olivet Discourse... The 2nd consideration has to do with the way the day of the Lord is said to begin in the 2nd part of the Olivet Discourse...The 3rd consideration is related to the grammatical/literary description of the day of the Lord's "coming" in Rev. 6... In the visions that correspond to the breaking of the 1st 4 seals, John hears each of the 4 living creatures calling, "Come!"...features of the day of the Lord."

9) pg. 52 "One point of agreement is that "the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world to try those who dwell on the earth" is the future tribulation."

The "hour of trial" was actually an historical experience of the ancient church at Philadelphia, who were given to escape a major problem in their day. And yet Blaising turns this into a future event--something that futurist interpreters often do with prophecies that might ordinarily be viewed as historically fulfilled.

Blaising recognizes that there is general tribulation that all Christians experience, but he, as a futurist interpreter, identifies a future "Great Tribulation" associated with the Reign of Antichrist. However, the "Great Tribulation," as defined by Jesus, is a strictly Jewish punishment, including both believers and unbelievers among the Jews in the suffering.

And it lasts throughout the NT age, which is what actually makes it the greatest tribulation, ie the greatest punishment Israel as a nation has ever suffered. Futurists tend to view the Reign of Antichrist as a fulfillment of the "Great Tribulation," mentioned by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse and also mentioned by Daniel in ch. 12. They feel that this tribulation, in being so terrible, would have to constitute a kind of wrath from God that excludes the Church.

But I believe the "Great Tribulation" is purely a prophecy applying to Jewish history which at the time was still under the Law. Luke 21 makes it pretty clear that this "Great Distress" was a Jewish "punishment!"

Blaising identifies this so-called "Great Tribulation" not just with the Reign of Antichrist, but also with the Wrath of God that is coming from Christ to bring judgment upon the world. It is assumed that this requires some length of time, instead of just a single day. And in fact, some judgments do take time, though they may not necessarily be called the "Day of the Lord."

So despite the fact Blaising acknowledges that Christians, or saints, are in this "Tribulation Period," he denies that the Church of the present age can be in that time period, being that it is God's Wrath and the Church as a whole should be protected from it. But again, general tribulation is the lot of all Christians, and experiencing God's Wrath in our land does not indicate that we are the targets of God's wrath. If Antichrist's Reign is not really the "greatest tribulation" in history, as Blaising seems to think, then it is no more "God's Wrath" upon the whole world than it is "God's Wrath" when we live in lands under Divine judgment.

The greatest wrath of God directed at the whole world will be Armageddon itself, which is the beginning of sentencing men to eternal death in the act of God punishing their rebellion. And this appears to happen on the last day of the age in the book of Revelation. Those who suffer on earth during this period are not the objects of God's wrath necessarily, but may be unfortunate casualties in this battle of Christ versus the Antichrist.

Though Blaising asserts that the Church of the present age cannot be in the time of Antichrist's Reign, he admits that he cannot show a "Rapture" event in the book of Revelation. He can only state that there was ambiguity in Jesus' message warning his Disciples to avoid God's Wrath by watching for him imminently, even though they may not be the ones who actually see the Rapture event.

10) pg. 57 "If we are right in assuming that this refers to the rapture, then one naturally expects it to be addressed in the text that follows... Here we find the contrast between "you" and "them."... We have here a clear parallel to 1 Thess. 5.9, "For God did not appoint us...to suffer wrath but to receive salvation."

11) pg. 51 "There is no explicit mention of the rapture in the book of Revelation."

12 pg. 55 "The 2 orientations to the Parousia are most easily seen in the Olivet Discourse. On the one hand, there is the orientation described in the 2nd part of the discourse, in which one does not know the day or the hour... This is the same orientation given to the disciples in Acts 1, where the Lord tells them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons.... The other orientation is that given in the 1st part of the Olivet Discourse and summarized in the illustration of the fig tree: "when you see all these things, you know that he is near... This is the orientation of watching the signs as the tribulation pattern unfolds."

13) pg. 66 "These 2 orientations are different and manifest 2 different forms of "imminency." The imminence of the rapture is due to the lack of any signs by which its proximity may be determined. It may be near or far. The time is unknown. It will occur unexpectedly. It could happen at any moment for those who will form the company that Christ will bring with him when he descends to the earth at the end of the day of the Lord to begin his millennial reign. This is the imminency that pretribulationism has traditionally advocated when describing the rapture."

This problem of separating "Tribulation Saints" from the present Church is compounded by its several contradictions. Not only do Tribulation Saints apparently suffer "God's Wrath" when Blaising indicates Christians shouldn't be there, but he also posits a Rapture that isn't even in the book of Revelation and imposes, arbitrarily, a pretribulational timing in the passage that mentions the Rapture (1 Thes 4).

Saints in the Tribulation are then determined, by Blaising, to not be Spirit-Baptized Christians, simply because he expects that the Church, together with the Holy Spirit, has been removed to heaven. And it is somehow thought that these Tribulation Saints, who are Jewish, must somehow come to faith without the Church being present so that they can enter into the Millennial age as mortals!

14) pg. 68 "The problem is, of course, that the more proximate the rapture is to the judgment of mortals, the fewer if any believers there will be to be admitted as mortals into the kingdom. Postribulationism obviously has the greatest difficulty with this problem."

15) pg. 69 "The church, as a previously unrevealed heavenly program, comes into existence as a parenthesis within the earthly program of God's purpose for Israel.. This parenthesis must be closed for the earthly program to resume... Daniel's chronology of the 70 7s, having been interrupted by the church, would resume... The church by definition cannot be present when Daniel's "earthly" chronology resumes. The church cannot suffer "wrath," because it cannot by definition be present in the time of tribulation wrath."

15) pg. 70 "It logically follows, then, that those who come to faith during the tribulation period are not part of the churches as the church is defined universally to be those united to Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit... In accordance with this, dispensationalists have typically identified the restrainer in 2.6-7 as the Holy Spirit in his mode of indwelling the church."

I cannot buy into this Dispensational distinction between the Church of the present age and the so-called "Tribulation Church!" And I can't buy into some notion of an age-long "imminency" inspired by historical events that indicate Christ could come "at any time."

No, the true "Great Tribulation" is an event that must precede the Rapture, which is the Jewish Diaspora of the present age, along with the universal preaching of the Gospel. Furthermore, we are not only not taught a Pretrib Rapture in 1 Thes 4 or in the book of Revelation, but we are in fact taught an explicit Postribulational Coming of Christ, terminating the age of Jewish Tribulation, ending the Antichristian persecution of the Church, and establishing God's Kingdom in a single day.

The "Rapture," in my view, is more descriptive of the event of our glorification and resurrection, than a name for the event itself. It takes place when we are caught up to heaven, and the "event" of the Rapture actually assumes the form of a glorified, resurrected Church appearing at the end of the age of tribulation in the book of Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible.

Thanks for slogging through this conflicted material!

 

[RandyK]

Hultberg Pre-Wrath

Like so many Futurists, Hultberg misidentifies the "Abomination of Desolation" with a future Antichrist. The AoD can be found in both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. The AoD is identified, in Luke, as the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, leading to an age-long Jewish Diaspora. It is not related to future prophecy, except that tribulation for the Jews in the present age ends at the Return of Christ.

He does, however, recognize God's judgment of the Jewish People in 70 AD, which he then indicates is a switch to the international Church. It is true that God took the Kingdom from Israel and gave it to Roman Civilization, but that doesn't mean the Olivet Discourse, and its AoD, was diverted away from speaking to the Jews and then speaking to Christians. It was, primarily, at that time, speaking to Jewish believers who were still under the Law.

1) pg. 111 "The primary sign of the end will be "the abomination that causes desolation" spoken of through the prophet Daniel."

2) pg.114 "The Jewish rejection of Jesus leads to the rejection of Israel and establishment of the church.. The fact that Jesus gives the kingdom to another "nation"...and that Matthew explicitly reports the complicity of the entire nation in the rejection of Jesus...demonstrates that Jesus does not intend merely the rejection of the Jewish leadership but of Israel as a whole."

3) pg. 115 "If Matthew expects the church to see the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation, then the rapture must occur after the middle of Daniel's 70th week."

Whereas Blaising separated the Rapture and the 2nd Coming of Christ by a period of 7 years, Hultberg views this 7 year period as divided into 2 parts, each 3.5 years, with Christ's Return and Rapture taking place *after* the 1st set of 3.5 years. He cannot see any separation between the Rapture and the 2nd Coming in the same way Blaising did. Instead, the small separation between the Rapture and the 2nd Coming he calls a "complex" 2nd Coming, which really has the same problem Blaising had separating the Rapture and the 2nd Coming.

He views the "Day of the Lord" as a complex of 2nd Coming and Rapture, spaced apart by less then 3.5 years. But it must follow the initial rise of Antichrist, as the sign of his Coming and Rapture.

I believe that Paul teaches in 2 Thes 2 the sign preceding Christ's Coming and Rapture is the *entire Reign* of Antichrist. The Coming of Christ and the Rapture of the Church are thus taking place simultaneously on the same day that Antichrist is destroyed.

And like many other Futurists, Hultberg bases his notion of a "7 year Tribulation" on Daniel's "70th Week" in Dan 9. I believe that 70th Week was fulfilled as a half-Week in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. It directly followed the 69th Week in perhaps 26 AD.

The Roman leader confirmed God's Covenant with Israel by tolerating Jesus' ministry in the 70th Week. But he had him killed in the middle of the Week.

4) pg.. 116 "The parallels between this passage [1 Thess. 4.15-17] and Matt. 24.30-31 are noteworthy. In both, there are references to the Parousia of Jesus in the clouds to gather his saints, accompanied by a trumpet blast and angels."

5) pg. 118 "When Paul refers to signs prior to the day of the Lord in 2 Thess. 2.3-4, he means to include the rapture as being preceded by those signs."

6) pg. 120 "In contrast to the day of the Lord coming on unbelievers unexpectedly and destructively, the day will not come this way for believers."

7) pg. 122 "If Paul had taught that the day of the Lord begins at the beginning of the 70th week and is preceded by the rapture, it is hard to conceive of why he points to signs of the 2nd half of the 70th week as a reassurance."

8) pg. 123 "The primary sign that must precede the day of the Lord is the abomination of desolation."

9) pg. 125 "standing in the holy place"...This language corresponds to Paul's when he speaks of the Man of Lawlessness taking his seat in the temple of God... Most scholars are agreed that Paul is thinking of the abomination of desolation when he mentions the session of the Man of Lawlessness."

10) pg. 141 "The evidence also demands that it will be raptured before the end of the week."

11) pg. 153 "The Parousia, then, is a complex of events that begins with the rapture after the middle of Daniel's 70th "week," proceeds through a period of wrath on the nations, and concludes with the return of Christ to establish his kingdom."

Hultberg, from my perspective, misidentifies, as a Futurist trait, historical prophecies with the Eschaton, or futurist prophecy. The 70th Week of Daniel he sees as the "7 year Tribulation period" of Antichrist's Reign. He sees the Abomination of Desolation as the Antichrist.

So he takes a lot of historical prophecy, given to Israel, and applies it to Christians, confusing the meaning of these historical prophecies. And he takes what Revelation says is only a period of 3.5 years and joins them with another set of 3.5 years to make a "7 year Tribulation period." This "Tribulation period," in my view, is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age, but he finds it, as all futurists do, to apply to the Reign of Antichrist.

But he does recognize that these prophetic Signs are meant to inform the Church and precede the Eschaton, as opposed to Blaising, who includes them all in the Eschaton. That way, it makes sense that Jesus even gave Signs to presage what is coming for Christians.

Do you see Christ's 2nd Coming as inclusive of an entire "7 year Tribulation period" under Antichrist, as Blaising does? Do you see Christ's 2nd Coming as inclusive of some of the last half of a "7 year Tribulation period" under Antichrist, as Hultberg does? I don't. I think Christ's Coming and the Rapture of the Church are simultaneous, happen on a single "Day of the Lord," and takes place on the day Christ comes to destroy the Antichrist.

 

[RandyK]

Moo Postrib

Moo rightly sees the Rapture, not described so much as an event, but actually *descriptive* of the event. The event is the Resurrection, which goes with the Glorification, and the means is the Rapture. I agree.

1) pg. 186 "Theologically, rapture is best seen as a parallel to resurrection...The physical movement that is involved in the rapture is not a movement to escape something but a movement to be joined to something."

Like all Futurists, Moo sees the "Great Tribulation" of the Olivet Discourse and Dan 12 as the Reign of Antichrist. I see it as the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age, beginning with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But Moo at least acknowledges that this Tribulation may be historical, as opposed to strictly eschatological.

2) pg. 186 "I assume in this essay that the Scriptures predict a period of unparalleled distress for the people of God that will immediately precede the 2nd advent... And I will argue below that it is quite possible that none of these refers to the final tribulations into the 70th Week concept, it seems?"

Moo seems to view the NT age as "eschatological," instead of strictly preliminary to the Eschaton. In this way he supports the notion of Kingdom "imminence."

3) pg. 187 "The age between the advents belongs to the "last things...the entire period is "eschatological."

4) pg. 187 ""imminency" refers to the New Testament teaching that these culminating events could occur "at any time."

5) pg. 188 "The New Testament writers did not view their own history and experience as fundamentally separate from the events of the end of the age."

6) pg. 189 "While "tribulation," as we have seen, is the common lot of God's people in this age, an especially intense and universal time of tribulation is predicted for the end of history in both the Old and New Testament."

Moo's view of the "Day of the Lord," therefore, must be separate from all tribulational experience in the NT age, whether in history or at the end. For Moo, the difference between Christian experience in history and Christian experience during Antichrist's reign is negligible. The "Day of the Lord" must follow all tribulation in the present age. "Watchfulness" is an attribute of Christians all through Christian history, and has less to do with chronological expectation than moral preparedness. We do not expect the Parousia during our present tribulations in the NT age, but expect Christ to come to deliver them from all of it.

7) pg. 192 "The degree of suffering in the final tribulation provides no grounds for a pretribulational rapture."

8) pg. 203 "There is good basis, then, for thinking that Paul uses "day (of the Lord) language as generally interchangeable with the Parousia."

9) pg. 205 "It is not Paul's point to encourage the believers to "watch" for the day so that they might escape it. The verbs Paul employs in his commands...do not connote watching for something, but faithfulness to Christ."

Moo makes the same mistake all Futurists do in applying the "Abomination of Desolation" to the Antichrist. I believe the AoD was the Roman Army 66-70 AD. Luke 21 confirms this for me. And Moo seems to admit this historical application, regardless.

10) pg. 213 "1st, the phrase "abomination of desolation" clearly alludes to the same prophecies in Daniel that we have just seen Paul citing to describe the end-time Antichrist... The strength of this language suggests that only the final tribulation can be in view."

11) pg. 214 "Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to provide strong support for an AD 70 reference."

Moo argues against the historical fulfillment of the AoD and the Abomination of Desolation by disparaging Preterism. I do not hold to Preterism, and yet see the AoD as primarily focused upon the events of Jesus' generation. There are historical events that necessarily precede Christ's Coming, including the preaching of the Gospel to all nations and the Jewish judgment of 70 AD, followed by the Jewish Diaspora. The Olivet Discourse begins with Jesus' generation and aims towards the 2nd Coming. I don't think we should confuse these 2 distinct elements. The NT age is in no sense the Eschaton!

 

[RandyK]

cont. Moo Postrib...
12) pg. 215 "Parousia, it is argued, need not refer to the final "coming" or "appearance" of Jesus--and there are suggestions in the New Testament that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was seen by early Christians as a "coming" of Christ in judgment on the city and on Israel."

13) pg. 217 "Jesus may refer to the greatest distress of all time ...as a hyperbolic way of emphasizing the suffering that the Roman destruction of the city would cause. But it is perhaps likelier that he refers to the sufferings of God's people throughout the "church age."

Moo is, like Hultberg, switching from a Jewish Prophecy in the Olivet Discourse to a prophecy given to the international Church. Though of course the principles involved in the Olivet Discourse apply to all NT Christians the specific prophecy was directed, at the time, to Jesus' Disciples while they were still under the Law. The Prophecy was foretelling the future of the Jewish People in the coming NT age.

14) pg. 218 "For it is surely a legitimate assumption to think that the disciples in the Gospels are generally representative of all disciples--or else why do we accept Jesus' teaching as relevant for the church in general?"

Moo well explains that the use of the word "church" in the Bible refers to a local body. Therefore, Revelation would not use the word "church" in the main body of the book except in the places, early on, when the 7 churches of Asia were being referred to. The absence of the word "church" does not, therefore, connote the disappearance of the Church from the earth while discussing the persecution of Christians by the Antichrist.

15) pg. 230 "John himself never uses ekklesia other than as a designation of a local body of believers."

Moo explains the book of Revelation to be non-chronological and consisting of repeating visions, or recapitulations. I agree--the chronology of a set of visions does not connote an actual timeline of events in chronological order. The order of visions is not the same thing as the order of their fulfillment.

It is easy to prove this by showing a number of different visions that display the same coming of Christ and the same eschatological realities. Christ's Coming and God's Wrath are revealed in a number of different visions, indicating that visions cannot be lined up in order of a timeline.

16) pg. 232 "Immediately before the Parousia we are given a proleptic vision of the judgment and salvation that the heavenly intervention brings (17.1-19.10). Following the Parousia are portrayed the events that flow from it. In other words, it is the Parousia of Christ that is the focal point of Rev 6-20--all other events lead up to or follow from it, while periodic visions reveal different aspects of these events... The events depicted in chapters 6-16 are not in chronological order. There is simply too much repetition as the visions unfold and too many places where the language seems clearly to be describing Parousia events to think that the progression is chronological. John therefore recapitulates the sequence of events to take place during the time of the church's tribulation."

Moo's blend of historical and eschatological prophecy in the NT sounds like inaugurated eschatology. But this remains unclear for me. He does distinguish between Israel and the Church, instead of seeing the Church as the final fulfillment of Jewish Prophecy.

17) pg. 234 "to be sure, this does not necessarily mean that we can simply merge Israel into the church entirely... What is important, I would suggest, is that we distinguish carefully between prophecies directed to Israel as a nation...and prophecies directed to Israel as the people of God...a people that includes the church... It is our contention, then, that the final tribulation predicted for Israel by, for example, Daniel, is directed to Israel as the people of God. It can therefore be fulfilled in the people of God, which includes church as well as Israel."

Moo's sense of "imminency" indicates that a "near Kingdom" does not necessarily exclude warning Signs preceding its advent. But he also indicates, surprisingly, that this renders the Kingdom somewhat "imminent!" How can a Kingdom come at any time when Signs must precede this event taking place?

But Moo admits this by placing an "imminent expectation" both as a "moral preparation" and an expectation within the limited time of the "Tribulation Period." It is simply an unknown calendar date, as opposed to expectation that Christ can return at any time in history.

18) pg. 236 "Clearly this meaning does not require that there be no intervening events before something said to be imminent transpires... It expresses the supremely important conviction that the glorious return of Christ could take place within any limited period of time...None of the many words used to describe the nearness of the Parousia, or the believer's expectation of it, requires an "any moment" sense of imminency...A number of other terms ("watch"; "be awake"; "be sober"; "look at") are used to exhort believers to an attitude of spiritual alertness and moral uprightness in the light of the 2nd coming but simply nothing as to its time... It may be impossible to predict the time of the Parousia even after the Antichrist has been revealed... Jesus frequently suggests that there will be a delay before his return... Important are specific predictions that could not have been fulfilled if Christ had returned immediately after his ascension.... The apostolic fathers also believed in a postribulational rapture and expected to participate in tribulation events... The time of that rapture with respect to the final tribulation is nowhere plainly stated."

The main problem I have with Moo is that he tends to use a form of "Inaugurated Eschatology" to rationalize his use of historical prophecies to apply them as eschatological prophecies. He sees the Kingdom as "near" and necessarily following the "Tribulation," along with the "Abomination of Desolation," as they are mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

I do have some sympathies with this perspective, although I think the interpretation of the prophecies are wrong, confusing historical prophecies with the Eschaton. The Kingdom of God did draw near in the initial appearance of Jesus and also in the offer of the Kingdom to people of membership in that Kingdom, bringing them from "near" to the Kingdom to "in" the Kingdom. But the Kingdom, as such, is not eschatological, and only leads to that after many years of necessary history. The Gospel had to be preached to all nations, and the Jewish nation had to be sidelined in the Diaspora. These were Signs preceding the Eschaton, just as the Birth Pain Signs of the Olivet Discourse were Signs preceding the 70 AD event of Jerusalem's historic destruction.

There are a number of points I agree with Moo on, and a number of points I disagree with Moo on. But more importantly, I agree with his Postrib perspective, and he does make some great arguments, in my opinion. Thanks for enduring this somewhat complicated scrutiny of 3 bright scholars.