the imminent pre-wrath rapture of the church

The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of The Church

Sam A. Smith

Biblical Reader Communications www.BiblicalReader.com

Copyright 2004, 2006 by Sam A. Smith All rights reserved, except as expressly stated below. This document may be copied and distributed for noncommercial, educational use if distributed free of charge. All other use is prohibited. No portion of this document other than brief quotations (of a paragraph or less) are to be included in any other works with-out the express written permission of the author. This copyright notice must appear on all copies or portions of copies distributed. All Scripture quotations are from the NIV, unless otherwise indicated. Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org) The “NASB,” “NAS,” “New American Standard Bible,” “New American Standard,” “Ampli-fied,” “LBLA,” and “La Biblia de las Américas” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by The Lockman Foundation. Use of these trade-marks requires the permission of The Lockman Foundation. Originally published online March 2004, last updated March 2006 This booklet and other publications by the same author are available from: www.BiblicalReader.com

The Author, Sam A. Smith has been involved in Bible teaching ministries for over thirty-five years. He holds graduate degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary, Columbia Biblical Seminary, and Liberty University, with additional studies at LeTourneau University, Campbell University, East Carolina University, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University. To contact him, write to [email protected]. Be sure to include the name of this booklet in the remark line of your message.

Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 What the Rapture is All About 9 3 Current Viewpoints on the Relative Timing 18 of the Rapture 4 Rethinking Pretribulationism 36 5 A More Strictly Biblical View of the Timing 52 of the Rapture 6 Final Thoughts 63

The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church 5

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction The “rapture” of the Church refers to the New Testament’s teaching that Christ will someday return for His Church, resur-recting the dead and the transforming the living, and calling His Church out of this world and into Heaven—an event that is to be nearly instantaneous and without warning or signs. While the Bible does not tell us when this event will occur, it does indicate that it is imminent (i.e., that it could happen at any moment), and that it will occur before “the great and terrible day of the LORD”—the coming time during which God will judge the earth and its inhabitants and pave the way for the establishment His promised kingdom on earth. In recent times the most popular viewpoint on the timing of the rapture has been “pretribulationism”—the view that the rapture must occur before the beginning of the seven-year period often referred to as “the tribulation” prophesied in Daniel 9:27, and elsewhere in both the Old and New Testaments (Psa. 110:1-7; Isa. 2:10-11; 13:6-16; 24:1-23; 26:20-21; 34:1-15; 63:1-6; 66:4-6, 14b-18; Jer. 25:30-38; 30:4-7, 23-24; Ezek. 38:1-39:24; Dan. 2:1-45; 7:1-28; 9:27; 12:1,5-12; Joel 2:1-11; 3:1-16; Amos 5:18-20; Mic. 5:10-15; Zeph. 1:2-3:11; Matt. 24:4-31; Mk. 13:1-37; Lk. 17:20-37; 21:34-35; 1 Thess. 5:1-11; Heb. 12:25-26; Jude 14-15; Rev. 4:1-20:3). There have been other viewpoints, both within “dispensationalism” (the interpre-tive frame of reference that recognizes the Church as a distinct entity), and within “covenant theology” (which make no distinc-tion between the Church and believers of other eras). We will begin with a survey of how we got to where we are with the various viewpoints currently in circulation. From there we will briefly examine all of the major positions and their argu-ments, culminating with pretribulationism. Finally, we will attempt to answer the question: “If we strictly limit ourselves to biblically supported facts concerning the timing of the rapture, what would such a view look like?” The answer—as we will see—does not lead to any of the classic views, including pretribula-tionism, but to a much simpler view we will refer to as “the imminent pre-wrath rapture” of the Church. [This position views


the rapture as imminent and pre-wrath, yet without the necessity that it absolutely must occur before the tribulation begins. This view represents a new understanding of the timing of the rapture that was put forth by the author in the original edition of this booklet in 2003.] How We Got to This Point Prior to the popular revival of premillennialism, which began in earnest in the late nineteenth century and continued in the twentieth century, most Christians simply believed that at some time Christ would return and there would be a general judgment, with the righteous inheriting eternal life and the unrighteous inheriting eternal punishment. This view, referred to as either “amillennialism,” or “postmillennialism,” depending upon how literally one took the prophecies of the millennium, had the appeal of simplicity—if not strict biblical accuracy. However, premillennialism with its face-value interpretation of future prophecy, envisions a future literal reign of Christ upon the earth in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, and to his descendants. Needless to say, premillennialism’s view of the future is far more complex in terms of sorting out what will happen. For example, assuming premillennialism to be true, one must deal with the question of whether the tribulation (the seven-year period immediately preceding the millennium, spoken of prophetically in both the Old and New Testaments) is past or future, as this has everything to do with one’s view of the rapture of the Church. If one happens to hold, as some premillenialists do, that the tribulation prophecies were fulfilled in the first century destruction of Jerusalem or the early persecution of the Church, then one must necessarily hold to a “posttribulational” view of the rapture—with the rapture occurring after the conclusion of tribu-lation. On the other hand there are premillenialists who believe the Bible to teach a literal future tribulation, and yet still believe in a posttribulational rapture. (All covenant theologians, regardless of their view of the millennium, view the rapture as occurring at the time of the second coming of Christ.) However, most premil-lennialists believe that the Church will be raptured well in advance of the second coming, prior to the outpouring of divine wrath during the tribulation period. The most widely accepted of


these views is “pretribulationism”—the belief that the Church will be gathered to Christ before the seven-year tribulation period begins. In the middle to late twentieth century several variations sprang out of the pretribulational view, they are: midtribulation-ism, pre-wrath rapturism, and partial rapturism. “Midtribula-tionism” places the rapture at the midpoint of the tribulation, but still prior to the outpouring of divine wrath, since it views only the second half of the tribulation as divine wrath. Rosenthal’s version of “pre-wrath rapturism” is an updated form of midtribulationism that places the rapture about three-quarters of the way through the tribulation; it holds that only about the last quarter of the period is divine wrath. “Partial rapturism” belongs in a category by itself, since it combines pretribulational concepts with semi-Pelagianism (free-will/Arminian) theology. Partial rapturism holds that there will be a pretribulational rapture, but only those believers who are prepared will be raptured; the rest will be raptured later, or at the end of the period at the second coming. Of course, the partial rapture view makes participation in the rapture “works” oriented. Both partial rapturism and midtribulationism were poorly supported, and neither received wide acceptance. Prior to the nineteen-nineties, if one were dispensational and premillennial, they probably subscribed to pretribulationism. Since the 1970s, pretribulationism has become almost a test of orthodoxy in some circles, and it is not uncommon to find pretribulationism written into the doctrinal statements of some churches. It wasn’t until the nineteen-nineties that pretribulationism faced it’s first major challenge from within. Marvin Rosenthal, former International Director of The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, a conservative and pretribulational missionary organization, broke ranks with pretribulationists and published, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. This book was widely read, and some pretribulationists began to gravitate toward Rosenthal’s view. As will be demon-strated, the arguments Rosenthal used in support of his particular pre-wrath position do not hold up under scrutiny; nevertheless, they appealed to midtribulationists and to some pretribulationists who were beginning to take note of serious problems in the key pretribulational arguments.


Confusing terminology It’s unfortunate that Rosenthal’s view has been broadly labeled as “pre-wrath rapturism,” since both pretribulationism and mid-tribulationism are also pre-wrath views of sorts—they simply disagree on how much of the tribulation period is actually divine wrath. Because of the almost certain confusion that might otherwise result from the use of the term “pre-wrath,” I will be referring to Rosenthal’s view as “Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view” to distinguish it from pre-wrath positions in general (i.e., any view that places the rapture prior to the manifestation of divine wrath at the day of the LORD). Another significant terminological problem is the use of the word “tribulation.” In pretribulational parlance, the term “tribu-lation,” when used in relation to future prophecy has become synonymous with divine wrath. Since pretribulationists believe the entire seven-year tribulation period to be divine wrath, it’s easy to see how this terminological fusion has arisen. Neverthe-less, it is critically important to note that the Bible nowhere uses the term “tribulation”[Gr. thlipsis, a general term meaning “afflic-tion,” or “severe hardship”] as a technical label for the entire seven-year period immediately preceding the millennial kingdom, or as a technical term indicating divine wrath. As a label, the word “tribulation” has simply become a convenient term to use. The problem with labeling the seven-year period in this way is that the distinction between the various components can be obscured. The seven-year period leading up to the second coming of Christ is certainly going to be a time of tribulation (severe hardship), but at least a portion of that period is also characterized prophetically as a time of divine wrath, and these two components (“hardship” and “divine wrath”) are not identical, nor are they necessarily co-extensive (having the same starting and ending points). If we refer to the entire period as “the tribulation,” and then subsume the meaning of “divine wrath” into “tribulation,” we have—without providing any biblical or theological support—defined the entire seven-year period as a time of divine wrath, and that results in an unsupported premise (i.e., that the entire tribulation period is divine wrath) being used in the formulation of arguments about


the timing of the rapture. As we will see, this simple logical fault is the Achilles’ heel of pretribulationism.


CHAPTER TWO: What the Rapture Is All About

The study of the rapture is of great significance to church-age believers; it represents the completion of salvation—our final and ultimate redemption—the sanctification of our bodies. Paul writes in Romans:

[8:22-25] We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we have been saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The final redemption of the body is the great hope shared by every believer. It is the teaching of the New Testament that for the church-age believer, that hope will be realized in an instant, when Christ suddenly appears in the sky to resurrect the dead, and to transform the bodies of living saints into their glorified eternal form, as they are caught up into the air to ever be with Christ (1 Cor. 15:51-53; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

Biblical Background of the Rapture Since the existence of the Church was not revealed in the Old Testament, and since the rapture relates exclusively to the Church, there is no reference to the rapture in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Christ is the first to mention the rapture in the New Testament (Jn. 14:3), but he gives few details other than disclosing that Heaven is the destination of the raptured saints. It is Paul who develops the rapture theme, mentioning it in eight passages (Rom. 8:20-23; 1 Cor. 15:35-38; Eph. 1:13-14; Phil. 1:6,10; 3:10-11,20-21; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 4:13-18; Tit. 2:11-14). From Paul’s statements we learn the following facts about the rapture.


1. The spirits of those believers who die prior to the rapture will be reunited with their resurrection bodies (1 Thess. 4:14).

2. The resurrected believers will rise first (1 Cor. 15:52-53; 1 Thess. 4:15-16).

3. Living believers will be “changed” (their bodies will be trans-formed) and caught up to meet Christ in the clouds (1 Cor. 15:52-53; 1 Thess. 4:17).

Paul also mentioned that the Church is not destined to experience the wrath of God (contextually, the wrath unleashed against the ungodly during the day of the LORD), but to the obtaining of salvation (1 Thess. 1:1-10; 5:9, cf. Rom. 5:9). James makes reference to the rapture and associates it with personal accountability before Christ, possibly alluding to the judgment seat of Christ that follows the rapture (James 5:7-9). Peter equated the rapture with the completion of the believer’s salvation (1 Pt.1:3-5). The Apostle John mentioned the rapture twice, and alluded to the transformation of the bodies of believers at the appearance of Christ (1 Jn. 2:28; 3:2). He also indicated that the glorified bodies received by the saints will be like Christ’s post-resurrection glorified body (3:2, cf. Phil. 3:20-21). Description of the Rapture The only detailed descriptions of the actual rapture event occur in two passages: 1 Cor. 15:51-53 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives the following description.

[15:51-53] Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead in Christ will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperish-able, and the mortal with immortality.”


In 1 Thessalonians he says:

[4:13-18] Brothers, we do not want you to be igno-rant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.”

A number of observations flow from these two passages. 1. The details of the rapture were apparently a mystery until

revealed through Paul. 2. At the rapture, Christ will appear in the sky. 3. Christ will be accompanied by the souls of the saints who have

died, returning to receive their resurrection bodies. 4. The event is to be signaled by a shout from an archangel and a

trumpet call. 5. The dead in Christ will be resurrected, and then those who are

alive will be changed (transformed). 6. He will call believers, both the resurrected and the trans-

formed, up to himself in the clouds. (Note that the description of the rapture differs significantly from that of the second


coming, when Christ actually returns to the earth and remains.)

7. Believers who are alive and transformed at the rapture will not

pass through death. 8. The entire event will happen almost instantly. 9. The raptured saints will never be separated from Christ. It is only the Church that participates in the rapture; the Old Testament saints and those on earth saved after the rapture do not participate in the event. In order to understand how the rapture is possible, we must grasp the unique nature of the Church and how God’s program for Israel and the Church differ. The Unique Nature of the Church Makes the Rapture Possible It is God’s plan to consummate the salvation of those belonging to the Body of Christ (the Church) at the rapture, and it is the unique nature of the Church that makes this event possible. Every saved person in history fits somewhere in the plan of God, but not every saved person in history is part of the Church. (We are not speaking of the visible, organized church, which includes both saved and lost, but the invisible body of Christ {Col. 1:18,24}, i.e., those who are baptized into Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit.) The Church did not exist until the Holy Spirit began baptizing believers into the Body of Christ on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5 cf. 1 Cor. 12:13); therefore, the Old Testament saints, though beloved of God and occupying a special place in the plan of God, are not part of this peculiar entity called, “the Church.” This is also true of people saved after the rapture. It is important that we do not confuse God’s purpose and plan for the Church with His purpose and plan for Israel; these two entities are not the same, and if we confuse them we must abandon hope of finding any meaning in future prophecy. The Bible teaches that God did not abandon His program for the true descendants of Abraham, that is, those who are his children by both birth and faith—Rom. 9:6-9. He has every intention of fulfill-


ing his promises to Israel (cf. Psa. 105:8-11; Jer. 33:20-26; Rom. 11:1-36). This is the basis for belief in a literal earthly kingdom begin-ning at the second coming of Christ and extending into eternity. The fact that Israel as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that God, from both Jew and Gentile forged a new entity—the Church—does not nullify God’s promises to Israel, it merely post-poned the fulfillment of those promises until Israel, as a nation, responds to God’s grace at some time in the future. That’s one of God’s purposes for the coming tribulation period—to bring Israel to faith in Christ. It’s true that church-age saints share in the distinction of being designated “children of Abraham.” Abraham is, metaphorically speaking, the father of all who believe (Gal. 3:6-9,29, cf. Gen. 12:3). The blessings that the Church enjoys have their roots in the Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:8-9). However, it would be incorrect to interpret this to mean that Israel and the Church are the same, or that the Church is merely a continuation of Israel under a new name, or that Israel’s promised blessings have somehow been transferred to the Church (as is maintained by covenant theology). While church-age believers are called “children of Abraham,” Israel is never designated as the “body of Christ.” Galatians 6:16 is sometimes cited as an example of the Church being referred to as “Israel.” However, the Church is not mentioned in this passage; Paul is merely drawing a distinction between those who were outwardly Israelites—by birth and tradition—and those who were “the Israel of God”—by birth and faith. Thus he nullified the argument of the Judaizers that one must be circumcised to be right with God, for even the Jews had to be saved by faith. The presence of saved Jews in the Church, even if they are referred to as “the Israel of God,” does not equate the Church, as an entity, with Israel. The duality of these two is strictly maintained in the New Testament. In Romans 11:1-36, where Paul gives the analogy of the root and the branches, it is worth noting that he never pictures both the Church and Israel as the same, or even coextensive (attached to the root at the same time). Israel was attached to the root at one time, but because of their rejection of their Messiah, they were broken off, and the Church was grafted in. At some point in the future, when Israel responds to the Lord (Zech. 13:7-9), they will be grafted back in


again (Rom. 11:23-24). While both Israel and the Church share a common heritage in the faith of Abraham, and while both trace their blessings to the promises God made to Abraham, they are nonetheless distinct, just as two children may have the same parent and be loved equally, but be born at different times, have different names, and have different expectations made of them by the same parent, and even receive a different inheritance. Nowhere is the critical distinction between Israel and the Church more significant than in the study of prophecy. The reason is that both the Church and Israel occupy unique places in God’s prophetic program. The Old Testament promises to Israel are for a land, a nation, a throne, and a special and perpetual relationship with God. The fountainhead of these promises is the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3,6-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:15-18). They are further developed in the Palestinian covenant (Deut. 29:1-30:20), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-17), and the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34), as well as numerous prophetic passages dealing with the coming kingdom on earth (Ps. 98:1-9; Isa. 11:1-12:6; 25:1-12; 32:1-8; 35:1-10; 40:3-11; 66:1-24; Jer. 33:10-26). On the other hand, the Church is nowhere promised a land, descendants, a nation, or throne—though it does share in the promise of a special relationship with God and a heavenly home (1 Jn. 1:3; 3:3; Jn. 14:1-3). So, just what is the Church (the Body of Christ) and who does it include? As was stated previously, the Church did not exist prior to the commencement of Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost. The biblical basis for this assertion is as follows. 1. The Church is “the body of Christ” (Col. 1:18,24), and Spirit

baptism is the operation that makes a person a part of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Since the Spirit’s ministry of baptism did not begin until the day of Pentecost, A.D. 33, it is not possible that believers who died prior to that time could be included as part of the Church.

2. The disciples recognized that Pentecost marked the beginning

of the Church (Acts 11:15-16).


3. Jesus indicated the Church to be a future reality from the standpoint of His earthly ministry (Matt. 16:18—note the future tense, “I will build my church”).

4. The nature of the church age as a parenthetical age, distinct

from God’s program for Israel, is reinforced by its complete absence from Old Testament prophecy, which explains God’s program for Israel in great detail. Note for example how the church age is completely absent from the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27, falling entirely between the 69th and 70th weeks. Likewise it is missing entirely from the descriptions of the first and second comings of Christ in Isaiah 61:1-3.

A Common Misinterpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 One rather odd doctrine that is frequently encountered is the view that if a person hears but does not respond to the gospel prior to the rapture, they cannot be saved later (during the tribu-lation). This completely erroneous idea is based on the gross misinterpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, especially verses 10-12, which read as follows.

[2 Thess. 2:1-12] (1) Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, (2) that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (3) Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruc-tion, (4) who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. (5) Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? (6) And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. (7) For the mystery of lawless-ness is already at work; only he who now restrains


will do so until he is taken out of the way. (8) Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; (9) that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, (10) and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. (11) For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influ-ence so that they will believe what is false, (12) in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. [NASB]

The position taken by some is that verses 10-12 refer to individu-als who hear the gospel prior to the rapture, but do not respond and to whom God will send a powerful delusion after the rapture, in order that they will believe what is false (rather than believing the truth of the gospel). However, the most obvious fact that ought to be observed concerning this passage is that the rapture is not mentioned anywhere, nor is it mentioned within the chapter or anywhere else in the book of Second Thessalonians. In this passage Paul is writing to correct the mistaken belief that the day of the Lord had already arrived. Apparently someone had misin-formed the Thessalonian church that Paul himself had said that the day of the Lord had come (v. 2). Paul solidly denied having been the source of such information. He then proceeded to debunk the whole notion that the church could now (at that time) be in the day of the Lord. Though we will discuss the particulars of this passage in greater detail later, Paul makes the case that the day of the Lord cannot begin until sometime after the apostasy that follows the revealing of the Antichrist in the temple—an event that will not happen until the midpoint of the tribulation period. Thus, Paul’s argument is that since the Antichrist has not been revealed (v. 4 cf. v. 8), the day of the Lord cannot have arrived. In verses 6 through 12 Paul describes the signs and wonders that will accompany the Antichrist once he is publicly revealed and which will deceive those who have previously


rejected the truth (during the time leading up to the spiritual delusion beginning in the second half of the period). As can be seen, this passage does not refer to conditions before and after the rapture; it refers to conditions before and after the revealing of the Antichrist in the temple in the middle of the tribulation. What Paul said is that those who have rejected Christ up to the point at which the Antichrist is revealed (at the middle of the tribulation period) will fall into a delusion in the second half of the period. The delusion is the claim of the Antichrist to be “God” (v. 11 cf. v. 4). When this passage is understood in its proper context, there is nothing in it that should lead us to conclude that people hearing but not responding to the gospel prior to the rapture cannot be saved later. Such a view is also completely incompatible with belief in divine sovereignty—that a person comes to God when he or she is effectually called by the Holy Spirit. The very fact that an intrinsically Arminian (free-will) doctrine would be so widely taught even by many who claim to reject free-will theology testifies to the great lack of sound theological thinking present in so many churches today. In any case, there is no biblical basis at all for the notion that a person who hears but does not respond to the gospel prior to the rapture cannot be saved afterward—though there is a stern warning that for those in the tribulation it may be possible to wait too long, and fall under the coming delusion.


CHAPTER THREE: Current Viewpoints on the Relative Timing of the Rapture

The date at which the rapture will occur cannot be known since Scripture does not reveal the length of the church age. Also, there are a number of competing views as to how the rapture relates chronologically to the tribulation period (this is referred to as, “relative timing”). We will look at six current views on the relative timing of the rapture. Four of these views are dispensa-tional and two are covenantal. Dispensational Views While we will not go into a full discussion of the differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology (for that see: What the Bible Says About the Future, by the author), it’s important to know that one’s orientation on this issue will have profound consequences for the study of the rapture, as well as the study of future prophecy in general. (For an excellent discussion on this subject see, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Dispensa-tionalism and Covenant Theology, by Renald Showers, available from The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, <www.foi.org>; or see: The Problem With Covenant Theology and The Biblical Basis of Premillennialism, by the author—available at <www.BiblicalReader .com>.) Covenantalists make no distinction between Israel and the Church, preferring instead to view all redeemed people throughout history as part of the same body, whether called “the Church,” or “Israel.” Since the Bible plainly indicates that there will be saved people present throughout the tribulation, covenantal interpreters have taken this to mean that the rapture does not occur until the second coming of Christ (if they have a view on the rapture at all—some do not). All forms of covenant theology that have to a viewpoint on the rapture are therefore “post-tribulational”—placing the rapture at the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, among dispensationalists (who do see a distinction between the Church and the redeemed of other historical eras) the pretribulational view, that the rapture occurs prior to the beginning of the tribulation, has been the dominant view. However, there are three other views associated with dispensationalism; they are “midtribulationism,” which places the


rapture in the middle of the tribulation; “Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view,” which places the rapture sometime in the second half of the tribulation; and “partial rapturism,” which places the rapture prior to the tribulation, but holds that only those believers who are prepared will be raptured, the rest will be left to go through the tribulation. Let’s take a look at each of these views and their primary arguments. You will notice that all of these views depend heavily on deductive reasoning since there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly states when the rapture will occur. The Pretribulational View The following arguments are those generally used in support of the pretribulational view. Since we will examine the validity of each argument later, I will simply state them here with a brief explanation. 1. The Bible indicates that the rapture is an “imminent” event, and the pretribulational position is the only view compatible with imminency. In other words, if the Bible teaches that Christ might return for the Church at any moment, that fact would seem to imply pretribulationism, since any of the other views would require at least some intervening events of the tribulation to take place prior to the rapture. For example, neither the midtribula-tional view, nor Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view hold to an imminent rapture, since both of these views would require that certain tribulation events must transpire before the rapture takes place, and the same could be said of the posttribulational view. 2. The Church is not the object of God’s wrath. Pretribulationism maintains that the entire seven-year period of the tribulation is divine wrath. Since Paul is clear that the Church is not to be the object of God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess.1:9-10; 5:9), pretribula-tionists conclude that the rapture must occur before the tribulation begins. The principle passage used is 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, where Paul says,


[5:9-10] For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.

Given the fact that this passage appears immediately after a discussion of the rapture (4:13-18) and the coming time of wrath (5:1-8), and that it alludes to the two conditions of the saints at the time of the rapture as those “awake” (alive) and those “asleep” (dead) cf. 4:14-17, it is apparent Paul was referring to the Church’s rapture prior to the outpouring of divine wrath in the tribulation. This same thought was also expressed earlier in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, where Paul referred to the fact that the Thessalonians were waiting for Christ, “who rescues us from the coming wrath.” Given the context (5:1-11) it is apparent that Paul had in mind the wrath associated with the day of the LORD. 3. The tribulation is a resumption of God’s program for Israel and there is no reason for the Church to be present. That the tribulation period marks the resumption of God’s program for Israel can be seen from the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy “weeks” (Dan. 9:24-27), in which the seventy “weeks” relate to the nation of Israel (v. 24), with the seventieth “week” representing the tribulation period. According to this argument, since the church age is parenthetical to God’s program for Israel (it occurs outside the prophesied program for Israel, falling between the 69th and 70th “weeks” of the seventy “weeks” prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27), and it is reasonable to assume that the Church is to be raptured sometime in advance of the second coming, then the rapture most likely occurs prior to the beginning of the tribulation period. All of these pretribulational arguments are problematic in some way, and we will examine those problems in chapter four, “Rethinking Pretribulationism.” The Midtribulational View The midtribulational view takes the position that the rapture will occur approximately in the middle of the tribulation. This view, which experienced limited popularity at one time, has


largely given way to Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view. The basis for midtribulationism is a chronology of the tribulation that places the rapture in Revelation 11:11-15, equating the seventh trumpet of Revelation (11:15) with the trumpet call of the rapture (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16). Revelation 11:11-12 reads:

[11:11-12] But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.

According to this view, since the Church is not raptured until the seventh trumpet of Revelation, which midtribulationists view as occurring at the midpoint of the period, the seals and trumpets of Revelation cannot be equated with divine wrath—that would result in the Church suffering the wrath of God. (Remember, midtribulationism is a pre-wrath position.) Midtribulationists generally view the seals and trumpets as human or satanic wrath, similar to persecution in any age, but far more intense. If you’re familiar with Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, you will readily see the resemblance between these two views. They are clearly built on the same frame. There are many problems with the midtribulational argu-ments. First, the passage cited as the rapture in Revelation 11:11-12 is not a description of the Church being raptured, but rather the two witnesses of God being resurrected and caught up into heaven. Second, the sounding of the seventh trumpet of Revela-tion does not occur until 11:15, which is actually not associated with the supposed “rapture” event of 11:11-12. According to Paul’s teaching, at the rapture the trumpet call precedes the event (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:16); in contrast, the midtribulational scenario requires the trumpet to sound well after the event is completed. Therefore the seventh, and last trumpet of Revelation cannot be equated with the “last trumpet” of the rapture. Third, the passage cited (Rev. 11:11-12) occurs in one of the two chrono-


logically recursive sections of the book, disconnected from the main timeline of the book. Actually, the event to which Revelation 11:11-12 refers occurs very near the end of the tribulation—not in the middle (a chronological foible corrected by Rosenthal in his pre-wrath view). Fourth, the notion that the seals, at least the last seal, and the trumpets of Revelation, are not the wrath of God is arbitrary and appears contrary to what is implied in the text (note the reference to wrath between the sixth and seventh seals in Revelation 6:16-17. There simply is no interpretive basis for start-ing the wrath with the first bowl judgment other than to identify the seventh trumpet as the trumpet of the rapture—which as we have seen is clearly a misidentification. Rosenthal’s Pre-wrath View Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view divides the tribulation into three distinct periods: the “beginning of sorrows,” which occupies the first three and one-half years; the “great tribulation,” beginning at the midpoint of the period and extending to approximately the breaking of the seventh seal (possibly eighteen to twenty-four months prior to the second coming); and “the day of the LORD,” beginning at the breaking of the seventh seal and culminating at the second coming. According to this view only the day of the LORD represents divine wrath. Since the Church need only escape the period of divine wrath, the rapture would not need to occur until just prior to the outpouring of that wrath, or approxi-mately eighteen to twenty-four months prior to the second coming of Christ. It is important to understand that this view doesn’t simply establish a terminal point at which the rapture could occur—it “fixes” the rapture at a point within the tribula-tion, drawing a connection between the trumpet of the rapture and the trumpet judgments of Revelation. This view, along with midtribulationism and posttribulationism, will be referred to here as “fixed-point” (or “contingent”) views, since they all fix the rapture at some point within the tribulation period, viewing the event as non-imminent (since, according to these views, the rapture can only happen after certain tribulation events have transpired).


Rosenthal’s view has many similarities with the midtribula-tional view, but it is more complex. Arguments offered in support of Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view are as follows. 1. The difficulties of the “great tribulation” (as defined by

Rosenthal) do not represent divine wrath, but rather the wrath of man and Satan; therefore, there is no theological necessity for the Church to be absent from the great tribulation. (Recall that according to this view, the great tribulation precedes the outpouring of divine wrath.)

2. The day of the LORD, which is the time of divine wrath, does

not commence until the breaking of the seventh seal. This is based on the observation that the seventh seal embodies the celestial judgments, which elsewhere in Scripture seem to be characteristic of the day of the LORD (cf. Joel 2:30-31; Isa. 13:9-10). In fact, according to Rosenthal, Joel 2:30-31 implies that the day of the LORD cannot begin until these signs are manifested. Joel says:

[2:30-31] I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.”

3. Malachi 4:5-6 indicates that Elijah will be sent before the coming of the day of the LORD. If Elijah is to be identified as one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3, then the day of the LORD probably could not commence until sometime after the midpoint of the period (since the two witnesses likely do not begin their ministry until sometime near the midpoint).

4. The last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is most likely a

reference to the trumpet judgments embodied in the seventh seal. Believers will be raptured in connection with the trumpets of Revelation, but before the outpouring of divine wrath embodied within the bowl judgments. (Note the close similarity here with midtribulationism.)


Now let’s look at some of the problems associated with these arguments. 1. Even if Rosenthal is correct that divine wrath is limited to the

last seal (or a portion of it), that fact in itself does not mean that the Church must, or will be raptured so late in the period. Since Scripture does not indicate how far in advance of the day of the LORD the rapture will occur, it is possible that the rapture could occur much earlier.

2. The assertion that the day of the LORD cannot begin until the

celestial events are manifested is based on a faulty under-standing of the word “before” in Joel 2:31. This argument depends upon the word “before” [Heb. lipnâ] meaning “to precede in time.” However, lipnâ commonly means “at” or “in the presence of.” In other words, Joel was simply saying that these celestial events would be observed “at” or “in connec-tion with” the day of the LORD, not necessarily prior to the day of the LORD. In any case, the point hardly matters since, as stated in the first point above, the rapture could occur at any time prior to the advent of the day of the LORD—it need not be immediately prior.

3. The argument that the day of the LORD cannot begin until

Elijah comes, as one of the two witnesses in the tribulation, is faulty on two counts. First, there is no biblical evidence to establish that Elijah is to be one of the two witnesses in the tribulation. Revelation, which is the only book of the Bible to mention the two witnesses, does not state their identity (Rev. 11:3-13). Second, Christ declared on two occasions the Malachi 4:5-6 prophecy to be fulfilled, for as he said, Elijah did come, in the person of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14; 17:11-12). Matthew 17:11 is not a prediction of a future coming of Elijah, but a recognition that he had already come “typically” in the person of John the Baptist; verse 12 makes this quite clear. However, even if the point were conceded that Elijah must come before the day of the LORD, that does not mean that the rapture must occur immediately prior to the beginning of the day of the


LORD. At most, it would only establish the terminal point at which the rapture could occur (by establishing the day of the LORD as occurring sometime in the second half of the period).

4. The identification of the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15:52

with the trumpets of Revelation is completely erroneous. The trumpet call in 1 Corinthians 15:52 (as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:16) precedes the rapture and announces deliverance, whereas the trumpets of Revelation follow the pictured event and announce judgment. Since the trumpets of Revelation are blown over a period of time, the last of these trumpets would be considerably removed in time from the supposed rapture event in Revelation 11:11-12, and therefore cannot be equated with the trumpet signaling the rapture. There is simply no sound interpretive basis for connecting the trumpet of the rapture with the trumpets of Revelation, though some try to make a connection based on the observation that both are either stated, or in the case of the Revelation trumpets, implied, to be “last.” However, this identification is erroneous since “last” is a relative, not an absolute term. To illustrate this we can simply point to the fact that the seventh trumpet isn’t even the last trumpet of the tribulation period. The last trumpet of the tribulation is blown at the second coming (Matt. 24:31); however, in relation to the particular events they pertain to, they are all—relatively speaking—“last.” The rap-ture trumpet is the last trumpet of the church age, the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the last of the trumpet judgments, and the trumpet at the second coming signals the final great event of the tribulation period.

5. Rosenthal’s view is inconsistent with the Lord’s teaching of an

imminent rapture, since it fixes the time of the rapture after the sixth seal is broken, and connects it with the trumpet judgments, thus implying that the rapture cannot occur until after certain tribulation events have transpired.

The Partial Rapture View The partial rapture view maintains that there will be a rapture prior to the beginning of the tribulation, similar to


pretribulationism, but not all believers will be taken—only those who are prepared will be raptured, the remainder who are not raptured will be left to go through the tribulation (or at least a portion of the tribulation period). Like midtribulationism, partial rapturism has never been a widely held view. Support is derived primarily from the following passages: Matthew 24:40-51; 25:1-13; Luke 20:34-36; 21:36; Philippians 3:8-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:8; Hebrews 9:24-28, and Revelation 3:3 and 3:10. Partial rapturists believe that each of these passages in some way indicates that only believers who are prepared and waiting expectantly at the time of the rapture will be taken. Matthew 25:1-13 is the parable of the ten virgins. While pretribulationists characteristically deny that this is spoken in reference to the rapture, it does seem to continue the theme from the previous chapter, which ends with a discussion of the immi-nency of the rapture (cf. 24:36-51). [Pretribulationists deny that Matthew 25:1-13 relates to the rapture because they deny 24:36-51 relates to the rapture. Although we will discuss this in more detail later, I will simply note here that they do this for two reasons: 1) because they see problems for pretribulationism from the parallel passage to 24:36-44, which is Lk. 21:36; and 2) they are loath to see a discussion of the rapture in such close proximity to a discussion of the second coming (24:29-31). However, acknowl-edging that the parable of the ten virgins does refer to the rapture of the Church, this passage still does not support partial raptur-ism. The reason is that this is a parable of “the kingdom of Heaven” (25:1), and we know from other parables (cf. Matt. 13) that the kingdom of Heaven encompasses the invisible kingdom (those truly saved), as well as those that merely profess belief, but are not redeemed. In the parables of the kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 13 the duality of saved and lost within the kingdom of Heaven is illustrated by: plants that yield fruit vs. spouts with no root that dry up, a tree vs. birds lodging within the tree, wheat vs. tares, dough vs. leavening within the dough, good fish to be keep vs. bad fish to be discarded. Based on a proper understanding of the nature of the kingdom of Heaven, we must conclude regard-ing the virgins who had no oil, and of whom Christ said, “I do not know you,” that they represent those who while professing faith in


Christ have never been born again (i.e., they are “reformed” but not “transformed”). [For additional information on this subject see, What the Bible Says About the Future, chapter five: The King-dom of God and the Millennium, by the author.] Matthew 24:40-51 and Luke 21:36 are parallel accounts from the same Olivet discourse. The passage does not teach that participation in the rapture is conditioned on works, but rather on salvation. Note that the evil servant is not simply left behind, but “He [the Master] will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which condemnation cannot describe the future of a redeemed person. Rather, these servants evidence the validity of their belief by their actions (cf. Jam. 2:18-20). Those who are “evil” only manifest that they do not belong to Christ. The parallel passage, Luke 21:36 says, “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” Pretribulationists counter the use of this passage by asserting that it, and the parallel passage in Matthew 24:36-44, are spoken in relation to the second coming, not the rapture. While this is a convenient solution, it poses even greater problems, and as we will see later, is certainly incorrect. Even if this passage were spoken in relation to the rapture (and I will argue later that it was), it still would not support partial rapturism since the passage says nothing about only part of the Church being removed. It is a general admonition to believers, as a group (Gr. deomenoi, “you [plural] implore”), concerning the future of believers, as a group (Gr. katischusēte, “you [plural] may be able to escape”). In order to apply this to individual believers one would have to argue the distributive use of the plurals (i.e. “let each one of you pray that each one of you may be able to escape…”), and there appears to be no compelling contextual support for that interpretation. Luke 20:34-36 mentions those who “are considered worthy of taking part in that age (i.e., the millennium) and in the resurrec-tion from the dead.” This passage refers to those who are resur-rected to go into the millennial kingdom. There is no mention of the rapture, nor is there any link between particular works and entrance into the kingdom. Scripture teaches that one becomes


worthy to enter God’s kingdom by faith, not by works (Eph. 2:8-9). Philippians 3:11. Here Paul mentions that his goal is to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Partial rapturists have inter-preted this statement to indicate that apart from works Paul could not count on being included in the rapture. The construction of this passage in the original is somewhat complicated grammati-cally, since the very long sentence which ends with verse 11 actually begins in verse 8. What Paul is saying in this extended sentence is that faith in Christ results in four things: knowing Him (Christ), knowing the power of His resurrection, knowing the fellowship of His sufferings, and being conformed to His death. This results in one’s ultimate participation in the resurrection (Gr. éi, “so that” [A.V. “if by any means”]—shows the conditional rela-tion of resurrection to “becoming like him in his death”). Paul makes a similar statement to this effect in Romans 6:5, where he says, “For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” How does a person become “united with Christ” in the “likeness of his death,” or be “conformed to his death?” The answer is, “by faith” (Philp. 3:9). This identification is not something Christians strive for, it is something that becomes a reality the moment a person exercises faith in Christ. Paul is arguing in both of these passages that a Christian’s life ought to reflect the inner spiritual reality of union with Christ, not that Christians ought to strive to obtain that union—for they already possess it. Thus, Paul was not implying any uncertainty regarding his future participation in the rapture. 1 Thessalonians 5:6. In this passage believers are contrasted with the unsaved who will be unaware of what is happening at the end of the age. Although believers are enjoined to be watchful, there is no hint in this passage that failure to do so might result in being left behind. 2 Timothy 4:8. In this passage, Paul makes reference to the crown of righteousness that he and “all who have longed for His (Christ’s) appearing” will receive. Partial rapturists suggest that those who do not “long” for Christ’s appearing will not receive


the crown, because they will miss the rapture and be left on earth to go through the tribulation while the rest of the Church is in Heaven receiving their rewards. First, we should note that the rapture is not mentioned in this passage. Second, “all who have longed for His appearing” seems to be an expression for “believ-ers” (i.e., a descriptive label). Paul has been talking about the fact that he is ready to die (v. 6). He knows that God has a reward for him, and for all the saints (they are, after all, the ones who have “longed for his appearing”). The argument from Hebrews 9:28 is identical to that employed in 2 Timothy 4:8. Therefore, the answer is the same. “Those who are waiting for Him” (Christ), is simply a label for “believers,” not an additional qualification for participation in the rapture. Revelation 3:3, which occurs within the context of the letter to the church at Sardis, urges the church to remember and obey what they had received, else Christ might come suddenly to deal with them. The coming mentioned in this passage is not the rapture. This is rather a threat, that if this church does not get back on course, Christ will deal with it in discipline. This same thought is expressed to the churches at Ephesus (Rev. 2:5) and Pergamum (Rev. 2:16) and is clearly not associated with the rapture in either of those cases. The argument from Revelation 3:10 is that God promised the Philadelphian church he would keep them from the hour of test-ing because they obeyed his command to endure patiently. One difficulty with attempting to use this passage in support of the partial rapture position is that the promise is to the entire Church, not merely to watchful individuals within the Church. The principal flaw in the partial rapture position is its failure to recognize the unity of the body of Christ, and the fact that participation in the rapture, which is the completion of one’s salvation (Rom. 8:23), is conditioned only upon faith in Christ—not faith plus works. Partial rapturism, as one might guess from its line of argumentation, appeals principally to those of Arminian


(free-will) persuasion—though it should be pointed out that partial rapturism has had limited appeal even among Arminians. Covenantal Views Covenant theology manifests itself in three distinct forms: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and covenant premillennialism. Amillennialism and postmillennialism both subscribe to a view of the tribulation and the millennium that is highly “spiritualized” or allegorized, meaning that they interpret these prophecies to mean something other than what one would assume from a normal reading of the text. As such, the rapture is not really a distinguish-able event from the second coming, which according to both of these views occurs after the millennium. Since there is no rapture (as distinct from the second coming), amillennialism and postmillennialism do not have a distinct doctrine of the rapture; they simply have a doctrine of the second coming. However, covenant premillennialism (commonly referred to simply as “posttribulationism”) does have a doctrine of the rapture, and because this view is widely held, it is of considerable importance. Classic Posttribulationism Posttribulationism (more precisely referred to as “covenant premillennialism”) is the belief that the Church will pass through the tribulation to be raptured in conjunction with the second coming of Christ. Posttribulationism takes two forms, one we will refer to as “classic posttribulationism,” the other as “imminent posttribulationism.” While both forms tend to allegorize many of the tribulation prophecies, the popular form—classic posttribula-tionism—allegorizes the prophecies to a lesser degree than does imminent posttribulationism. The arguments commonly offered in support of classic posttribulationism are as follows. 1. The early Church did not teach pretribulationism. 2. Although the Church will suffer the wrath of man and Satan

during the tribulation, the wrath of God is specifically directed against the unsaved.


3. The fact that Christians will be present in the tribulation

proves that the Church is not absent. (Covenantalists view all believers of both the Old and New Testament eras, as part of the Church—the body of Christ.)

4. The Bible does not teach that the return of Christ is imminent. 5. The resurrection occurs in connection with the rapture. Since a

resurrection occurs at the end of the tribulation, this proves that the rapture also occurs at the end of the tribulation (cf. Rev. 20:4-6).

6. The New Testament uses the same words [Gr. parousia =

“coming,” apokalupsis = “revelation,” and epiphaneia = “appearing”] to describe both the rapture and the second coming; therefore, they must refer to the same event.

Now let’s take a closer look at each of those arguments. 1. While early church literature does not teach pretribulationism, neither does it teach posttribulationism, or any other view on the rapture—though it seems clear that they did subscribe to the concept of the imminent return of Christ. (Most pretribulationists take imminency as proof of pretribulationism, though as we will see later this is not logically sound.) 2. The idea that divine wrath poured out during the tribulation period is directed only against the unsaved is highly inconsistent with a normal/face-value interpretation of the events of the period. Most of the tribulation judgments are global and catastro-phic. By their very nature they will indiscriminately affect both saved and unsaved. Only a highly spiritualized (subjective) inter-pretation of tribulation prophecy could sustain the view that the Church might be present on earth and yet be unaffected directly by God’s wrath. 3. The fact that saved people will be present on earth during the tribulation period does not imply the presence of the Church. As


we have made the case earlier, not all saints are part of the Church (the body of Christ). Just as the church age had a definite incep-tion at Pentecost in A.D. 33, so it will have a definite conclusion, which will occur at the rapture. 4. It does appear that the biblical writers, as well as the early church, viewed the rapture as an event not to be preceded by signs—since they gave none; and that might occur at any moment—since they were continually expectant and encouraged others to be ready also. Most importantly, as we will see in discus-sion to follow, Christ in Matthew 24:36-44 unequivocally taught the imminency of the rapture (see also James 5:8). 5. Arguing that the rapture occurs at the close of the tribulation because both the rapture and the second coming occur in connec-tion with a resurrection of the dead is highly problematic for posttribulationism. The reason is this: The resurrection of the righteous, which happens near the end of the tribulation, actually does not occur until sometime after the second coming. [Daniel 12:11-12 indicates that it could occur as much as forty-five days after the end of the tribulation. Revelation 20:4-6 also pictures this resurrection as occurring after the second coming.] The problem for posttribulationism is that this would necessitate that the rapture occur sometime after the second coming. Of course, post-tribulationists don’t really believe that the rapture follows the second coming. This may be due to the fact that they don’t take these prophecies literally enough for the inconsistency of their position to come into sharp focus. In any case, this is a serious defect, and it illustrates that the resurrection associated with the second coming cannot be the same as the resurrection associated with the rapture. There is also a collateral problem because posttribulationism has to explain where the people come from who enter the millen-nium in their natural (unglorified) bodies. (At the rapture, every raptured saint will be given a “glorified” body {1 Cor. 15: 51-58}.) Generally, the explanation given by posttribulationists is that at the moment of the rapture many of the unsaved will realize what has happened, change their minds, and accept Christ before He


fully descends to the earth in judgment. This will allow for some to be saved after the rapture and enter into the millennium in natural (unchanged) bodies to repopulate the earth, as indicated in Isaiah’s description of the millennium, which immediately follows the tribulation period (Isa. 65:17-25). However, if the rapture does not occur until after the second coming, all the redeemed entering the kingdom would enter in glorified bodies, and there would be absolutely no explanation for the presence of people in their natural bodies propagating children during the millennium. [That there will be children born during the millen-nium is established inductively from Isaiah 65:17-25, and deduc-tively from the observations that: 1) only saved people enter the kingdom (Matt. 7:13-23; 25:31-46); and 2) believers in their glorified state do not marry and propagate (Matt. 22:30); and 3) that there will be a multitude of unsaved people present in the millennial kingdom near the end of the thousand years who could only have entered by birth (Rev. 20:7-9).] 6. The argument that the rapture and the second coming must be the same event since the same terms are employed is faulty because none of the terms cited are technical terms designating either the rapture or the second coming. The terms parousia (coming), apokalupsis (revelation), and epiphaneia (appearing) are general terms, not special designations for particular apocalyptic events. Therefore, it should not seem unusual for two similar, yet discrete events to be described by the same general vocabulary. On the other hand, a thorough comparison of the particulars of the rapture and the second coming clearly demonstrates that they are not the same event. Imminent Posttribulationism While classic posttribulationists view the tribulation as a clearly recognizable set of events (though somewhat less literally than dispensationalists), imminent posttribulationists hold that we could be in the tribulation already, without realizing it, and that the rapture and second coming could occur at any moment; hence, this view combines posttribulationism with a belief in the immi-nency of the rapture. This view offers the option of holding to an imminent view of the rapture, while still maintaining that the


Church is a continuation of or replacement for Israel—which is the central tenet of covenant theology. The difficulty with this view is that the events of the tribulation must be allegorized to the point of almost complete non-recognition in order for the view to be workable. In other words, imminent posttribulationists view the events of the tribulation so non-literally that they believe it is possible the church could pass through the tribulation and arrive at the second coming without really knowing that they had been through the tribulation at all. Jesus’ teaching on the tribulation plainly implies that it will be possible to discern certain events from within the tribulation period, and that certain actions will be necessary for believers when particular prophesied events come to pass (Matt. 24:15-25). How could Jesus make such statements if the features of the period are to be unrecognizable, and what is the justification for interpreting fulfilled prophecy literally, but expecting that tribulation prophecy will not be fulfilled in the same way? So far, we have noted difficulties with the major arguments for every view except pretribulationism, which we will examine next.


CHAPTER FOUR: Rethinking Pretribulationism

As we have seen, midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, partial rapturism, and posttribulationism all have serious problems with their supporting arguments. However, this does not mean that pretribulationism is, by default, the correct view. Such an assumption would be a reductive error (due to over simplifying the problem by assuming that one of these five views has to be correct). Logically, it is possible that all of these views, including pretribulationism, are incorrect. It has long been understood even by pretribulationists that most of the seven or so common arguments for pretribulationism are what one might call “weak” arguments. In other words those arguments only support the stronger arguments, but are not really probative in and of themselves. This has not been particularly worrisome since most pretribulationists have felt that they had at least two strong arguments in their favor—those arguments being: 1) the argument from imminency, and 2) the wrath argument. In the pages to follow we will look at the general arguments that have been offered in support of pretribulationism, and we will see that there are serious problems even with the two strong argu-ments. (The reader might find it of some interest to know that as a graduate student the author studied under the late Dr. John F. Walvoord—generally acknowledged to be one of the foremost exponents of pretribulational theology of all time—and held and taught the pretribulational view for over thirty years before coming to the conclusions presented here.) Pretribulational Arguments While it is not impossible that one might run into a peripheral argument not mentioned here, the following are the classic arguments that one encounters in the writings of capable proponents of pretribulationism. There are essentially seven argu-ments. As mentioned, five of them while interesting have always been marginal in terms of their value. I will deal with those first, afterward we will look at the two remaining arguments—what I will refer to as the “heavy” arguments. It is important to keep in mind that not all proponents of pretribulationism subscribe to all


of these arguments; however, most do subscribe to the two heavy arguments. As we work our way through this list, I don’t wish to convey to the reader that pretribulationism is wrong because these arguments are flawed. It is wrong, not because all of these argu-ments are flawed (negative proof), it is wrong because proponents have failed to prove that it’s right—a failure of the positive. Now let’s examine each of the arguments we listed previously in support of pretribulationism. 1. The tribulation is a resumption of God’s program for Israel and the

Church has no place in the tribulation. This is a point commonly made, and while it is a true statement that the tribulation concerns Israel, not the Church, that in itself does not necessi-tate a pretribulational rapture. It is possible that just as there was overlap between the existence of national Israel and the Church between A.D. 33 and 70, there could be overlap between Israel and the Church in the tribulation. This is one of those arguments that if one is already committed to the pretribulational view makes perfect sense, but really has no value in establishing the position. In fairness, I believe most pretribulationists view this more as a supporting observation rather than a proof.

2. No passage of Scripture in describing the tribulation ever mentions

the Church. This is true, and indeed noteworthy; but we have already acknowledged the fact that the purpose of the tribula-tion relates to Israel, not the Church, so there is no particular reason that the Church should be in view in tribulation passages. At best this argument is an argument from silence, and as such, it is not suitable as proof of a pretribulational rapture.

3. The argument from the removal of the “restrainer” found in

2 Thessalonians 2:3-9. This argument postulates that the Church must be absent from the tribulation because the Holy Spirit, who indwells the Church, is to be removed prior to the mani-festation of the Antichrist. This argument is based on several assumptions. 1) The passage never actually mentions the Holy


Spirit, nor is the identity of the “restrainer” given; it is simply assumed (by some pretribulationists) that the Holy Spirit is the one being referred to—an assumption that might, or might not be true. 2) The passage says nothing about the Church or the indwelling of the Church by the Holy Spirit. 3) The passage does not indicate that the restrainer is taken from the earth. In fact, the Holy Spirit must be present on earth in order for anyone to be saved after the rapture (or at any other time). 4) The passage says nothing about the rapture. This argument is really a series of dots with no connecting lines. If one is already a pretribulationist, pretribulational content can be read into this passage, but it would be impossible to argue pretribulationism simply on the basis of what the passage actually says.

A better interpretation of this passage might be that it refers to the unveiling of the Antichrist at the middle of the tribulation, and the martyrdom and subsequent apostasy among profess-ing Christians that will occur beginning shortly after the middle of the tribulation. Jesus in Matthew 24:4-28 describes this very sequence. If this is so, then not only does this passage say nothing about a pretribulational rapture, rather it indicates that the day of the LORD (the “container” for the wrath of God) doesn’t begin until sometime after the middle of the tribulation, thus further weakening the pretributional position by moving the onset of divine wrath to a point sometime in the second half of the tribulation period. (According to Matthew 24:4-28, the martyrdom and apostasy occur after the midpoint, as marked by the abomination in the temple, cf. Dan. 9:27.) We will say more about this problem later. For now, suffice it to say that there is nothing in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to support a pretribulational rapture, and it may well be that this passage provides information that argues contrary to the pretribulationist’s premise that the entire tribulation is divine wrath. We will come back to this passage after we have examined the remaining pretribulational arguments.

4. The promise to the Philadelphian Church (Revelation 3:7-13). It is

sometimes argued that Christ’s promise to the Philadelphian


Church in Revelation 3:7-13 is a promise of deliverance to the Church living at the end of the age. Revelation 3:7-13 says:

[3:7-13] “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (8) I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. (9) I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars-I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. (10) Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (11) I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. (12) He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jeru-salem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. (13) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Some pretribulationists who regard the letter to the Philadel-phian Church to be prophetic of the church living at the end of the age see this passage (esp. v.10) as a promise that the church will be removed from the earth prior to the “hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth,” which they take to mean the entire seven-year tribulation period. While even some pretribulationists are reluctant to view this letter as prophetic of the church living at the end of the age (and therefore do not subscribe to this argument), one cannot help but be struck by the apocalyptic


tone of the passage. If the passage is not apocalyptic and relates only to the historic Philadelphian Church, in what sense was it fulfilled to them? Was the historic Philadelphian Church spared from [the] trial to come upon the whole earth [to test those who live upon the earth]? While some have interpreted the promise to refer to an escape from the impending persecution of believers in the second century, such an interpretation simply doesn’t seem to do justice to the passage. Note that Christ refers not to trials (plural), or some nonspecific trial, but to “the” trial, implying that the recipients of this letter were already familiar (at least prophetically) with the specifics of this future event. We see also that the Lord refers to this particular trial as a global event, affecting not just the church, but affecting “those who live on the earth,” which can in no sense be confined to the Church, and thus equated with the persecution of the early church. Rather, it seems most likely that this passage does indeed provide a promise to the church living at the end of the age that it will escape “the” coming trial. However, even if this passage is prophetic, it does not support the contention that the rapture must occur pretribulationally. The reason is that there is no way to positively identify the entire seven-year tribulation period as “the trial” (i.e., divine wrath). [We will discuss this identification problem in more detail later.] It could just as well be supposed that “the trial” is the divine wrath poured out in connection with the day of the LORD which occurs sometime late in the seven-year period. In other words, the pretribulationist who appeals to this passage for support is saying: 1) that the passage has relevance to the church at the end of the age and; 2) that the following equivalence is true: [the seven-year period of tribulation = divine wrath = “the trial” referred to in this passage]. While the first point may well be conceded, the second point is simply dots with no connecting lines. As we will see in the discussion that follows, no one has been able, up to this point, to provide either biblical or theological proof that the entire seven-year period is divine wrath. In fact, there is strong indication from Scripture that the day of the LORD (the period under which divine wrath is manifested) commences late in the seven-year period.


While the letter to the Philadelphian Church in Revelation 3:7-13 is certainly an interesting passage, and should not be lightly dismissed, whether one takes it prophetic of the church at the end of the age or not makes little difference, as it does not prove pretribulationism either way. If the passage is prophetic, as seems likely, at most it promises a “pre-trial” (or should we say, a “pre-wrath” rapture), that is not the same as a pre-tribulational rapture. On the other hand, if the passage is not prophetic of the church at the end of the age, it is irrele-vant to the discussion of the rapture entirely.

5. The argument that Jesus indicated the possibility of escape

from the tribulation in Luke 21:36. Jesus said, in Luke 21:36, “but keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” There is nothing wrong with such an argument; however, it would not be particularly useful as an argument for pretribulationism, since pretribulation doesn’t simply hold to the “possibility” of a pretribulational rapture. Actually, arguing for the possibility of a pretribulational rapture would weaken the pretribula-tional position—which insists that the rapture can only be pretribulational.

Those are the five minor arguments often used in support of pretribulationism. Now we come to the two heavy arguments that most, if not all pretribulational proponents maintain to have strong probative value. The Wrath Argument The Church is not to be the object of God’s wrath. This fact, so forcefully declared by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, is without any doubt “the” quintessential statement with which all students of prophecy must reckon when it comes to the timing of the rapture. For those who assign any degree of literality to the meaning of Scripture, Paul’s statement can only be understood to mean that the rapture of the Church must occur prior to the outpouring of the divine wrath associated with the day of the


LORD. In other words, the extreme terminal point at which the rapture could occur is the moment prior to the outpouring of God’s wrath at the day of the LORD. It is interesting to note that on this point, the pretribulational, the midtribulational, and Rosenthal’s pre-wrath position all agree. It could rightly be said that each of these theories takes a “pre-wrath” view of the rapture; for each, according to its own view of the nature of the events of the tribulation, places the rapture prior to the outpouring of divine wrath. As indicated previously, the mid-tribulationist views only the second half of the tribulation as divine wrath, and those who hold to Rosenthal’s pre-wrath position view only the last quarter, or so, as divine wrath). The distinctive feature of pretribulationism is its view that the entire tribulation is divine wrath, thus placing the rapture prior to the beginning of the period. The pretribulational argument goes like this: The Church is going to be removed before God’s wrath is poured out upon the earth (the wrath specifically associated with the day of the LORD), the entire seven-year period of the tribulation is divine wrath; therefore, the rapture of the Church must occur before the seven-year period begins. Notice that we have a complete syllogism. Major premise: The Church will be raptured prior to the out-

pouring of divine wrath. Minor premise: The entire seven-year tribulation is divine

wrath. Conclusion: Therefore, the Church must be raptured prior

to the beginning of the tribulation. While it may seem too obvious to state, it’s important to observe that this argument is deductive. I say it’s important because many pretribulationists when asked to prove pretribulationism simply quote 1 Thessalonians 5:9, as if that constituted all the proof necessary. It doesn’t. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 supports the major premise, but if this argument is to be sustained, the minor premise must also be proven. Herein is the problem with this argument as a proof for pretribulationism—there is no firm biblical or theological support for the minor


premise. In fact, although the validity of the entire argument rests on the proof of the minor premise, one almost never hears this problem addressed in pretribulational discussions or literature. A common line of reasoning one hears concerning this problem is that the tribulation is composed of seven seals; since the last seal is clearly divine wrath (cf. Rev. 6:16,17), it is reasonable to assume that they are all divine wrath. This argument is based on an assumed literary homogeneity. The short form of this would be, “a seal, is a seal, is a seal—if one is divine wrath, they are all divine wrath.” So, is a seal, a seal, or what? Of course the seals are part of a unified structure and thus there is some sort of homogeneity to the seals, but it still doesn’t follow that they must all be divine wrath. We could just as well suggest that the homogeneity consists in the fact that they are all events (or segments) of the same period (i.e., Daniel’s seventieth “week,” according to Dan. 9:24-27). Pretribulationists make the point that the book of Reve-lation pictures Christ, in Heaven, breaking the seals. That certainly indicates that the events that transpire during the time of each seal are divinely controlled, but that in no way necessitates that they must all be understood as divine wrath. This illustrates one of the central problems in the presentation of pretribulationism—the tendency to make logical leaps where the Bible (or proper theo-logical deduction) fails to connect the dots. Given the scarcity of biblical facts on this subject proponents of the various positions sometimes fall prey to the tendency of covering gaps in biblical or logical support by stretching terminology to cover the gaps (e.g., “tribulation” = “wrath”). In relation to the seals of Revelation the Bible doesn’t mention wrath until 6:15-17, which is after the breaking of the sixth seal. So far, attempts to characterize the earlier seals as divine judgment are based on incomplete data, or faulty deductions; and, as we will see in the discussion to follow, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 appears to indicate that the day of the LORD doesn’t even begin until sometime after the midpoint of the period. There is an additional problem for the pretribulational posi-tion. The fifth seal, recorded in Revelation 6:9-11 (cf. Matt. 25:10),


involves the martyrdom of many, if not most of the saints living at that time during the tribulation. Pretribulationists have always been at a loss to explain how the suffering and death of such a large number of God’s faithful could be attributed directly to God’s active judgment. Unquestionably divine wrath is by nature “active” rather than passive—just consider the word “wrath.” If the fifth seal is to be divine wrath, then the fifth seal depicts God making saved people the objects (i.e., the targets) of His wrath. If on the other hand the fifth seal represents events that God has decided to sovereignly allow, it will be the direct causes (Satan, his agents, and evil men), not God, who will be responsible for this moral evil. That the events of the fifth seal represent unspeak-able moral evil allowed by God, rather than wrath sent by God, can be seen from the fact that the martyred saints in Heaven beseech God for justice in avenging their deaths on the perpetra-tors of that evil (Rev. 6:9-11). To maintain that the fifth seal is divine wrath would be to implicate God as the cause of that evil. If God is seen as condemning the evil committed under the fifth seal (cf. Rev. 8:1-6, esp. v.3, cf. 6:9-10), how can it be maintained that such is God’s righteous judgment upon the world? Suffice it to say that pretribulationists have failed to sustain the contention that the entire tribulation is divine wrath; especially with the, “a seal, is a seal, is a seal” argument. Of course, one could envision other approaches to solving this problem by arguing for the unity of the tribulation based on the entire period being part of Daniel’s seventieth “week” (Dan. 9:27), or some other common ground between various facets of the period. Nevertheless, the most that such arguments could prove would be that the entire period is, well, “a period,” and that’s a long way from proving that it’s all divine wrath, as required by the minor premise of the pretribulationist’s wrath argument. The Imminency Argument The argument from imminency can be stated this way: The Bible indicates, and early Christians believed that Christ might return for them at any moment (cf. Matt. 24:36-44; Jam. 5:8); there-fore, they could only have held to a pretribulational view, since any other view would require at least some intervening events of


the tribulation period to take place before the rapture could occur. Let me explain the rationale. What the pretribulationist is saying is this. The other standard views (i.e., the mid-tribulational view, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and the posttribulational view) are inconsistent with the concept of imminency because they “fix” the rapture at a point sometime within the tribulation, thus requiring that some tribulation events must transpire before the rapture can happen. (Such views can be referred to as “contingent” views, since they make the rapture contingent upon the passage of certain tribulation events.) For example, if one fixes the rapture at the middle of the tribulation, then the events of the first half of the period would have to transpire before the rapture could occur; likewise with the pre-wrath and posttribulational views. If one dismisses the partial rapture view as untenable on soteriological grounds (i.e., with respect to it’s view of works salvation), and considers only the remaining four views, then the issue of imminency could be used to determine which one of the remaining four views would be the correct one. The correct view would have to be pretribulationism, because it’s the only remain-ing view that is consistent with imminency (all of the other views are contingent). But, did you notice the subtle condition necessary for this logic to work? In order for imminency to be used as proof for pretribulationism, one has to be comparing pretribulationism only with contingent views (i.e., views that locate the rapture as occurring after some specified tribulation event, or events). In such a comparison only the pretribulational view passes the test, but only because of a reductive error in our procedure (since we limited ourselves to these stated views). However, suppose we broaden the range of possibilities and postulate a view that says: The rapture could occur at any time, up to the point at which God’s wrath is poured out, whenever that may be—whether before or during the tribulation. Notice that with such a view the rapture has not been made contingent on any prophesied future event, and thus is still imminent—yet without the requirement that it must be pretribulational. (According to such a view the rapture could still occur pretribulationally, because it’s imminent; however, the requirement that it must be pretribulational is removed.)


If we explore this a little further we might anticipate an objection something like this, “Well, if the rapture were to be located sometime within the tribulation it could not be imminent because even though we don’t know what events must precede it, those events must still come to pass before the rapture could occur, therefore, it wouldn’t be imminent.” Of course, such an objection would be completely illogical because the same is also true of pretribulationism—there are events that would have to precede a pretribulational rapture—that is, events known to God. Remember, imminency doesn’t mean that there are no events that precede the rapture; it means that no prophesied events must take place before the rapture could occur. What this line of reasoning is designed to demonstrate is that the rapture doesn’t have to be pretribulational in order to be imminent. As long as it is not made to be contingent upon any other prophesied future events, it’s imminent. Therefore, since imminency does not preclude the rapture from occurring within the tribulation, logically imminency can’t be appealed to as support for pretribulationism. If you are a pretribulationist this may seem a bit odd since imminency and pretribulationism have long been assumed to go hand in hand. Nevertheless, imminency, while compatible with pretribulationism (and incompatible with all of the contingent views of the rapture), is not proof of pretribulationism, since it can be shown to be compatible with at least one non-pretribulational hypothesis (as demonstrated above). This is just another example of how we often fall victim to reductionistic thinking in theological argumentation. The Problem of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 Up to this point I have simply critiqued the arguments offered in favor of pretribulationism. Actually, we don’t have to prove that pretribulationism is wrong. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that pretribulationism is biblical, and so far no compelling proof has been presented. However, I would now like to focus on what may well be a very significant argument against pretribulationism.


Previously we mentioned the problem of using 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 as support for pretribulationism. I would now like to make the case that this passage provides one of the most potent reasons for rejecting pretribulationism’s premise that the entire seven-year period of the tribulation is divine wrath, because it tells us quite plainly that the day of the LORD (the period that encompasses the wrath of God) cannot begin until sometime after the middle of the seven-year period. If this under-standing of the passage proves to be correct, then not only is there no positive proof for pretribulationism (as already observed), there is instead a powerful reason to reject pretribulationism’s central contention that the entire seven-year period is divine wrath. If the day of the LORD does not begin until sometime after the middle of the seven-year period, then the tribulation period and the day of the LORD are not coextensive (having the same beginning point) as required in pretribulationism’s wrath argu-ment. Second, if the day of the LORD doesn’t begin until some-time in the second half of the tribulation period, that leaves open the possibility that the Church could be raptured anytime up to a point well within the tribulation period. (Though it would seem problematic on other grounds to place the rapture too late in the period.) Remember, such a view is thoroughly consistent with imminency, as demonstrated above. Also, such a view does not require the rapture to occur late in the tribulation period, or even within the tribulation at all; it merely recognizes that the Bible gives us not a “point,” but a “window” within which the rapture could occur—a window extending from the present, to the begin-ning of the day of the LORD (whenever it begins, even if it begins late in the tribulation period). Let’s take a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Paul says,

[2:1-12] Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, (2) not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the LORD as already come. (3) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will


not come, until the rebellion occurs and the Man of Lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (4) He will oppose and will exalt him-self over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (5) Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? (6) And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. (7) For the secret power of law-lessness is already at work; but the one who holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. (8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splen-dor of his coming. (9) The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, (10) and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (11) For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (12) and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wick-edness.

Now let’s make a few observations from this passage. 1) It’s clear that Paul is talking about the final events for the

Church in relation to the Lord’s appearing (i.e., His “parousia,” v. 1).

2) Paul is responding to the report of some sort of communica-

tion, mistakenly thought to have been from him, to the effect that the day of the LORD had already arrived, (v. 2). It is easy to see how this could have caused a considerable stir in the local church, and could have prompted this apostolic letter.


3) He tells the church not be deceived, he’s really quite certain that the day of the LORD had not begun since neither the “rebellion” (Gr. apostasia, AV “falling away,” NASB “apostasy”), nor the “revelation” (Gr. apokalupsthē, “to be clearly and distinctly disclosed”) of the Man of Lawlessness (i.e., the Antichrist) had yet occurred, (vv. 3-4).

4) He explains how the Man of Lawlessness will be clearly

revealed. It will occur in this manner: He will oppose the worship of anything or anyone else, and he will seat himself in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God (v. 4).

5) Paul expressed surprise that the Thessalonians did not seem to

remember what he had previously taught on this subject, (v. 5). [This should have been Basic Theology 101 in the early church, since Christ himself had also spoken on this very subject (Matt. 24:4-25).]

6) He reminds them that the Man of Lawlessness will be

restrained from revealing himself until the one restraining is taken out of the way, (vv. 6-7).

7) The revealing of the Man of Lawlessness is to be in accordance

with the work of Satan, displaying all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders (vv. 9-10).

8) When the Man of Lawlessness is revealed, God will send a

powerful delusion on those who have (up to that point) rejected the truth. They will be deluded to believe the lie of the Antichrist—i.e., that he is God. (This is, of course, a very general statement concerning the world’s attitude, and we learn elsewhere that some (God’s elect) will not be deceived, cf. Matt. 24:9-25.)

From these observations we can make some deductions. First, as has been said, there isn’t a hint of pretribulationism in this passage. In fact, the injection of pretribulationism into this passage serves only to obscure the meaning. If Paul had previously taught pretribulationism it is unlikely that the Thessalonians would have


mistakenly believed themselves to be in the tribulation in the first place, and if Paul were teaching them pretribulationism in this passage, it hardly seems likely that he would describe specific tribulation events and say, “See, you can’t be in the day of the LORD because these things haven’t yet occurred. Such an approach would seem very odd, and certainly prone to confusion. Secondly, Paul states rather emphatically that the day of the LORD isn’t going to begin until after the Antichrist is revealed and the great “falling away” (NASB “the apostasy”), or “rebel-lion” takes place. Pretribulationists have generally interpreted the “falling away” as a veiled reference to the rapture, and the revealing of the Man of Lawlessness as a reference to the appearing of the Antichrist (generally equated with the first seal of Revelation at the beginning of the period, cf. Rev. 6:1-2). However, Paul clearly intends for us to understand that the “revealing” of the Man of Lawlessness is his revealing when he desecrates the temple, and that event according to Daniel 9:27, occurs not at the beginning but at the midpoint of the tribulation period. Since verses 3-5 are all one sentence in the original and must be read together, and the grammatical structure necessitates that the “falling away” and “revealing” are temporally related events, the associated “falling away” or “apostasy” to which Paul refers must be an apostasy that will take place in conjunction with the Antichrist’s revealing in his desecration of the temple (i.e., the abomination that makes desolate, cf. Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15). If we look for a Scripture parallel to these events, we don’t have to look far. In Matthew 24:3-25 the Lord outlines the events of the tribulation. In verses 4-8 he outlines the events of the first half of the period, and in verses 9-14 the events of the second half, with what appears to be a recursion (i.e., a return) to the midpoint beginning in verse 15. The thing we need to notice is that the particulars of the events given by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 is the same set of particulars given by Christ in Matthew 24:9-25. Jesus said the abomination in the temple will be accompanied by false miracles and spiritual deception (v.24) and will be followed by a great persecution and martyrdom of the saints (v.9), along with a great “falling away” from the faith (vv.10-13). Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 describes the very same set of events (the revealing of the Antichrist in the temple, with false miracles and


spiritual deception, and the associated “falling away” or “apostasy”). If we allow Scripture to interpret itself, we see that both Jesus and Paul appear to have been describing the very same set of events. That being the case, it is apparent that the day of the LORD will not begin until sometime after the apostasy that follows the public reveling of the Antichrist, when he desecrates the Jewish temple. Thus the day of the LORD, and the wrath associated with it will not begin until late in the tribulation, sometime in the second half of the period. If this connection is correct, as appears to be the case, the central argument of pretribulationism—that the entire tribulation is divine wrath—is not only unproven (by lack of positive evidence), but proved to be incorrect (by evidence to the contrary).


CHAPTER FIVE: A More Strictly Biblical View of the Timing of the Rapture

The contingent views (mid-tribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism) are all inconsistent with the Lord’s teaching on imminency, which in itself is sufficient reason to reject them. Also, as we have seen, the supporting arguments of each of these views contain serious defects. Pretribulationism has also failed to satisfy its burden of proof (i.e., that the Church is absent from the entire tribulation period). Nevertheless, the Bible does have something to say about the timing of the rapture. We simply have to be content with what it says, and resist the temp-tation to go beyond the bounds of what Scripture reveals or reasonably implies. If we discard the contingent views, and partial rapturism (on the basis of its flawed understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone), and the unsustainable elements of pretribu-lationism, and if we focus on what we know to be biblically supportable—an imminent rapture that must occur before the day of the LORD begins—it is possible to derive a biblically and theo-logically sound view, though it may have less specificity than we might like, particularly if one has grown accustomed to the notion that the rapture can be pinned down to a particular point on the timeline of future events. A Biblically and Theologically Sound View of the Rapture What do we know that is biblically and theologically certain that is relevant to the question of the timing of the rapture? Actu-ally we know two important truths with a very high degree of certainty. We know that the rapture is imminent (and we have seen that imminency does not require a pretribulational rapture, it only requires a non-contingent rapture). We also know that the rapture will occur before God’s wrath is manifested during the day of the LORD. In addition, we have noted that there is no bibli-cal or theological evidence that has come to light that definitively locates the wrath of God as commencing at the beginning, or any-time in the first half of the tribulation period. In fact, based on 2 Thessalonians 2, we can be fairly certain (if not absolutely


certain) that the day of the LORD does not commence until some-time in the second half of the tribulation—after the abomination in the temple. Pretribulationists have failed to prove that the entire tribulation period is a time of divine wrath (i.e., that the tribula-tion and the day of the LORD begin at the same time); as such, pretribulationism has failed to satisfy its minimum burden of proof for the wrath argument; and this alone is a fatal flaw since the wrath argument is central to the pretribulational case. Using this information to reformulate our understanding of the relative timing of the rapture, we can state a biblically and theologically sound view by limiting ourselves to what can be proven through direct biblical statements, or proper theological deductions. Here is what such as view (which for descriptive purposes I will term, the “imminent pre-wrath” view) would look like. The Rapture is Imminent The rapture is an imminent event—on this the New Testament is clear. Unfortunately, the current debate on imminency has largely been framed by argumentation between pretribulationists and those holding to non-imminent (contingent) views. Pretribulationists argue for imminency (since it is inconsistent with the contingent views), and proponents of the contingent views have attempted to show that imminency is not taught in the New Testament. To make matters far more complicated, pretribulationists have almost universally abandoned the strongest, and only direct biblical support for imminency, due to secondary theological complications—which will be explained in the following paragraphs. The fact that the Lord’s return for His Church is imminent is clearly taught in Matthew 24:36-44, which is the definitive state-ment of this doctrine. In this passage the Lord says,

[24:36-44] No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days


before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

This passage contains the most explicit statement of the imminency of the rapture found in the New Testament; any view on the timing of the rapture must be consistent with this doctrine. Unfortunately pretribulationists, who have been the principal defenders of the doctrine in the past, have done a less-than-adequate job in defending imminency and have left the doctrine open to attack from those subscribing to contingent theories. Therefore, we need to take a look at how pretribulationists dropped the ball, and what can be done to demonstrate that imminency is the clear teaching of the New Testament. Matthew 24:36-44 (as well as 25:1-10) was spoken in regard to the rapture, and it unequivocally teaches the imminency of Christ’s return at the rapture. However, some pretribulationists fear that acknowledging this passage as a reference to the rapture might lend support to posttribulationism (since the immediate context of vv. 36-44 is the tribulation and the second coming, cf. vv. 4-31), or that it might lend support to partial rapturism (since the parallel passage in Luke 21:36 has been used as support by partial rapturists). They also see dire implications for pretribula-tionism flowing from Luke 21:36, which is the parallel passage to Matthew 24:36-44. If it be acknowledged that Matthew 24:36-44


(and thus the parallel passage in Luke 21:36) refers to the rapture, that would seem to imply a degree of uncertainly about the precise timing of the rapture, since Luke 21:36 says, “But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you may have strength [i.e. “that you may be “able” —aorist subjunctive, denoting a possi-ble, but not certain outcome] to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” (NASB, explanation in brackets supplied.] As a result, some contemporary pretribulationists have taken the position that this passage refers not to the rapture, but to the second coming. This interpretation effectively deals with the secondary theological complications mentioned above; however, in the process it makes the defense of imminency very difficult, since Matthew 24:36-44 is the first mention and principal explication of the imminency of the rapture. In fact, Christ’s teaching is so clear in this discourse that the New Testament writers saw no need to re-iterate this truth; what we have from them is mostly the non-contradiction of immi-nency. (Thought James does appear to explicitly state the immi-nency of the rapture in James 5:8.) Proponents of the contingent views have been very quick to pick up on this; and in a strange twist of circumstances, pretribulationists have actually done far more damage to the case for imminency than their opponents. Without the principal text to positively expound the doctrine, what they have left is mostly the non-contradiction of imminency from the remainder of the New Testament and early church history, which at best is evidence in the negative, i.e. the non-statement of anything to the contrary. (If you have ever wondered why pretribulationists, who depend so much on imminency for their support, characteristically present such a weak case for the doctrine, now you know why.) So, how do we know that Matthew 24:36-44 refers to the rapture and not to the second coming? Actually the identification is rather simple. We know this passage must refer to either the rapture or the second coming, and on the basis of comparison it seems quite impossible that it could refer to the second coming. The appearing of Christ as described in this passage is secret (vv. 36,42,44), unannounced and unexpected (vv. 36-39, 43,44), and virtually instantaneous (vv. 40-41). Yet Christ, in the immediate


prior context, stated just the opposite of this in regard to His second coming; He said that it will be public (vv. 27-28), and attended by signs (v. 30), not to mention that it will be possible to calculate the precise day of Christ’s return (1290 days) once the abomination occurs in the temple (based on information contained both in Daniel and in Revelation). So, on the basis of comparison it is apparent that this passage can only have been spoken in reference to the rapture. Now let’s take a look at how some pretribulationists justify the interpretation of this passage as referring to the second coming instead of the rapture, and why that interpretation is incorrect. It is asserted that Matthew 24:36-44 cannot describe the rapture because the flood analogy from verse 39 indicates those “taken” are taken in judgment—as was the case at the flood. Obviously if the ones taken in Matthew 24:40-41 are to be taken in judgment, this passage could not be a description of the rapture. Also Matthew 13:49 along with other verses in Matthew 13 that speak of the removal of the unrighteous at the end of the age (associated with the second coming) are offered in support of this interpretation. However, the contention that those “taken” in Matthew 24:40-41 are taken in judgment at the second coming is not correct for the following reasons. 1) The reference to those “taken away” in the flood in 24:39 is not analogous to the ones “taken” in vv.40-41. Those who mistakenly connect the ones taken in verses 40-41 with those taken away by the flood (in judgment) do so because they press the analogical details of the flood illus-tration beyond what it was intended to illustrate. In this case the flood is simply an illustration of the sudden and unexpected nature of the event under discussion in verses 40-41. While it might be easy to make this misidentification from the English text, since the words “took them all away” (v. 39) and “one will be taken” (vv. 40-41) employ the same English root word (“taken” or “took”), implying a parallel; the Greek text employs an entirely different vocabulary for those the flood “took” (v. 39, Gr. ere, from airō, meaning, “to be taken away, or forsaken,” cf. Matt. 26:56; Mk. 1:18; 14:50), and those “taken” in verses 40-41 (Gr. paralambonetai, meaning, “to receive to one’s self,” cf. Jn. 14:3). In view of this, it hardly seems likely that the Lord intended for those “forsaken”


(in judgment) at the flood to be a parallel to the ones “taken” (i.e., “received to Himself”) in verses 40-41. That being the case, there is no reason to believe that those “taken” in vv. 40-41 are taken in judgment—which is, of course, the major reason given for assigning this passage to the second coming. Given the descrip-tion of this event, as we noted above, it fits only the rapture. 2) The supporting passages cited from Matthew 13 refer to a com-pletely different time and event, when Christ, at his second coming, will remove the unsaved so that they may not enter the millennium with the redeemed (cf., Matthew 25:31-46). There is simply no connection between the Matthew 13 material and the event described in Matthew 24:36-44 since they describe two entirely different events. 3) Regarding the parallel passage in Luke 21:36 Christ says, “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” The pretribulational interpretation of this passage as referring to the second coming, simply to avoid obvious theological difficulties for pretribulationism arising out connecting it with the rapture, is presumptive in that it assumes pretribulationism and it assumes there is no other reasonable interpretation of this passage. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. When we see that the timing of the rapture, in relation to the tribulation, is left indefinite by the Lord, then the admoni-tion in Luke 21:36 (again, the parallel passage to Matthew 24:36-44) is easily understandable. Christ taught imminency, and as we have seen, imminency does not require the rapture to be pretribulational—it merely requires that it not be contingent on any known (prophesied) future events. Any correct view of the rapture must be compatible with imminency. Nevertheless, since more than one view can be shown to be compatible with imminency, imminency cannot definitively answer the question of which of these views is correct. Ultimately the correct view will be the view that is compatible with imminency and that meets the burden of proof imposed by its own assertions.


The Rapture Will Precede Divine Wrath at the Day of the LORD The rapture must be pre-wrath. While pretribulationists have failed to sustain the minor premise of their wrath argument (that the entire tribulation period is divine wrath), there can be no doubt that the major premise (that the Church will be spared divine wrath at the day of the LORD by means of the rapture) is biblically sound. As stated in our previous discussion, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is without any doubt “the” quintessen-tial statement with which all students of prophecy must reckon when it comes to the relative timing of the rapture. Paul says in 5:9-10, “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salva-tion through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.” This statement is clearly intended to convey that the rapture of the Church (explained in 4:13-18) will occur prior to the outpouring of the divine wrath associated with the day of the LORD (described in 5:1-3). Paul’s reference in 5:10 to those who are “awake” (alive) and those who are “asleep” (dead) clearly harkens back to 4:15-18 (though employing different terminology in the original text), which describes the two states of believers at the time of the rapture. If those in 5:10 who are “awake” and those who are “asleep” are not the same as those who are “awake” and those who are “asleep” in 4:15-18, who are they? The contextual identi-fication is clear. Paul explicitly states that the saints, both the living and the dead will be received to Christ (by means of the rapture described in 4:13-18) before God’s wrath at the day of the LORD comes. In other words, the extreme terminal point at which the rapture could occur is the moment prior to the outpouring of God’s wrath at the day of the LORD. It Seems Likely That Not All of the Tribulation is Divine Wrath Not only is it impossible to know that the entire tribulation is divine wrath, it is possible to know, or at least have good reasons to suspect that God’s wrath is limited to a portion of the second half of the tribulation period. Of the three major passages from which it is possible to discern any tribulation chronology (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:3-31; and Revelation 6-19) the only passages that specifically delineate elements of the tribulation as divine wrath are Revelation 6:16-17, 15:1, and 16:1. Revelation


6:16-17 says, “…and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has {is] come; and who is able to stand.’” [Explanation in brackets added, Gr. ēlthe, “is come,” 2nd aorist, indicating “definitive” (rather than past) action]. This statement is made immediately after the occurrence of the sixth seal. Whether it is spoken in an actual or anticipatory sense is not known. It may be that the sixth seal (violent physical disturbances in the sky and on the earth) is a harbinger of the wrath to come with the opening of the seventh seal. In any case, there can be absolutely no doubt that the seventh seal to follow is divine wrath. (Revelation 15:1 and 16:1, both of which refer to divine wrath, are spoken in reference to the seven last bowl judgments, which occur during the time of the seventh seal.) In Revelation 7:1-8, John records information revealed to him concerning the sealing of the Jewish witnesses. Why are the 144,000 Jewish witnesses sealed at this point (between the sixth and seventh seals)? If the sealing is some form of preservation from at least some of the effects of divine wrath (Rev. 9:4), does the time of their sealing not suggest that the divine wrath is imminent (near—but not yet)? It is perhaps not without signifi-cance that from this point forward, God’s witness in the world becomes the domain of these Jewish men, twelve thousand men from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Isn’t this a qualitative shift, indicating a major change in the character of the period? When John finally comes to the breaking of the seventh seal (8:1ff.), our attention is immediately arrested in the first verse, for here John records something of great significance, which is said in relation to no other seal. He states in this verse, “And when He broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.” What does this mean? How could there be silence in Heaven? What sounds are heard in Heaven other than the contin-ual praise of an infinitely worthy God? Was there ever silence in Heaven since the creation of the world? We don’t know, Scripture does not tell us; but one thing we do know—God is communicat-ing something to us in this passage in the most powerful imagery imaginable. Something is about to happen that is unlike anything


else in this period, or in world history, or in cosmic history. As John proceeds with his description, we see neither horses called forth as in the first four seals, nor circumstances merely described as in the fifth and sixth seals, instead we see seven angels who stand before the throne of God, each given trumpets. We also see another angel holding a golden censer, with much incense, and added to it the prayers of the saints from the golden altar that is before God. Have we seen this altar before? Yes, it is the same altar mentioned in 6:9, from which the saints who were unjustly killed during the time of the fifth seal made their petition to God for vengeance (i.e., wrath) upon those who dwell upon the earth. The imagery is clear: God is now ready to answer that prayer and to judge the world. The implication is unmistakable, what has happened up to this point is that God has allowed evil people, with the help of demons, latitude to manifest their nature as never before in history. They have made war, caused destruction and death, and killed the saints. God now intends to judge them by an unprecedented outpouring of divine wrath. How could we fail to see such an obvious transition? It is also worth noting that the activities recorded in the first six seals are what one might call “ordinary.” That is to say, they are the kinds of things, qualitatively, that happen in the course of human history. We’ve had wars, famines, death, and to some extent physical and geophysical upheaval, though certainly not to the degree seen here. But the elements of the seventh seal seem altogether of a different quality—devastating geophysical and astrophysical destruction, an ocean destroyed, a poisonous substance from space contaminating much of the earth’s fresh water and killing a large percentage of the world’s population, a third of the sun and moon and stars stricken, a global demonic plague, demons released to provoke the killing of a third of mankind, loathsome sores on all mankind—except the sealed 144,000, life in the seas perishing, scorching heat from the sun, darkness over the earth, and finally Armageddon at which Christ will personally return to slay His enemies. Do you see the differ-ence? There’s more than a quantitative difference between the seventh seal and those that precede it—there is also a profound


qualitative difference. What accounts for that difference? Could it be that only the seventh seal is divine wrath? These observations, combined with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (previously discussed), which appears to state that the day of the LORD will not come until after the revealing of the Antichrist at the midpoint of the tribulation, makes for a compelling case that the wrath of God is not manifested until sometime in the second half of the period; and even if all of the information in the preceding paragraphs were proved to be invalid, there is still no positive biblical or theological support for identifying the entire tribulation period as divine wrath. The Conclusion: The Rapture is Imminent and Pre-wrath We have asked a lot of questions—some for which we cannot give absolute answers. But remember, we don’t have to prove that divine wrath is limited to the seventh seal, or some other portion of the tribulation period. All we need do is to point out that pretribulationism has failed to prove its case that the entire period in its entirety, is divine wrath. Having done that, it must be concluded that pretribulationism is unsupported, and some sort of pre-wrath position becomes the only option consistent with 1 Thessalonians 5:9 (the promise of the Church’s escape from divine wrath). Match that with the teaching from the New Testament of an imminent rapture, and what we are left with is an imminent and pre-wrath view of the rapture—beyond that we cannot give more details as to timing. How would we describe an imminent pre-wrath rapture? The concept of an imminent pre-wrath rapture involves not a contingent event as is the case with midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism, but rather an imminent rapture occurring within a window, sometime between the present and the outpouring of God’s wrath at the day of the LORD—the precise beginning of which point we need not take a definite position—though the seventh seal must in any case be the extreme terminal point. Accordingly, the rapture may well take place before the tribulation begins, if God so chooses; however, it is only necessary that it take place sometime prior to the outpour-


ing of God’s wrath. In any case, we may be assured that though, if God wills, the Church enters the tribulation period, it will not be present for the wrath to come. This is the blessed hope of the Church.


CHAPTER SIX: Final Thoughts

We owe a great debt to pretribulational thinking. Pretribula-tionists have always been at the forefront in insisting that the Bible clearly distinguishes the rapture from the second coming, and that it teaches a “pre-wrath” rapture. They have also solidly main-tained a belief in the imminency of the rapture, a point of view consistent with the New Testament and the beliefs of the early church, but which has been abandoned by proponents of all the contingent views. On the really important issues, the pretribula-tional view is right—that the rapture is imminent and pre-wrath. Its greatest shortcoming has been that it goes beyond the bounds of Scripture and sound theological reasoning in its assumption that the entire tribulation is divine wrath. Where does this leave us? We need to keep sight of the core truths that the rapture is going to occur before God’s wrath is manifested in the day of the LORD, and that from all indications the expectation of the New Testament and the early church was that the rapture could occur at any time without warning or signs. We might not know precisely when the day of the LORD begins, or when the wrath of God will be poured out; however, the indication from 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is that the day of the LORD will begin sometime after the manifestation of the Antichrist in the temple (thus according to Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:4-28 placing it in the second half of the of the seven-year period). There is no evidence from Scripture or proper theological deduction that definitively places the wrath of God in the first half of the tribula-tion; hence, the necessity of a pretribulational rapture is impossi-ble to sustain. The most that can be known about the relationship of the rapture to the tribulation is that the rapture could occur anytime prior to the outpouring of God’s wrath. To say more is simply to go beyond what can be supported from Scripture. There is certainly nothing wrong with the hope of a pretribulational rapture—which is not the same as pretribulation-ism—the belief that the rapture must occur pretribulationally. All who believe in imminency are looking for the rapture to occur at any moment. To those who have the stewardship of teaching


others, we should remind ourselves that the accuracy of our doctrine may soon be tested, and we ought to believe and teach only what is solidly supported from the Word of God. We must not teach as doctrine, assumptions that might manifest that we have been less than careful in handling God’s truth. If we say only what Scripture supports and the rapture occurs before the tribulation begins, we will all be very happy, but if we go beyond what Scripture says and we are proven in time to be wrong, we will lose our credibility and sow the seeds of confusion, doubt, mistrust, and unpreparedness, at a time when the Church most needs leadership and a clear voice.

the imminent pre-wrath rapture of the church

Documents