Chapter
3: 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 dispensational and two are covenantal.
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 Dispensationalism 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 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 midtribulational
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), pretribulationists 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 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 arguments. 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 Revelation 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 chronologically 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 starting 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 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 approximately 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 tribulation, 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 midtribulational 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 understanding 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 connection 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 rapture 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
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 imminency 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, acknowledging that the
parable of the ten virgins does refer to the rapture of the Church, this
passage still does not support partial rapturism. 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 regarding 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 Kingdom 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 resurrection from the dead.” This passage refers to those who are resurrected
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
interpreted 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 grammatically, since the very long sentence
that 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 relation 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
“believers” (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 testing 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.
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 distinguishable 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.
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 posttribulationism—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 catastrophic. By their very nature they will indiscriminately
affect both saved and unsaved. Only a highly spiritualized (subjective) interpretation 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 inception 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 discussion 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 connection 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, posttribulationists 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 millennium 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 millennium is established inductively from Isaiah
65:17-25, and deductively 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.
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 imminency 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 Three, taken from: The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture
of the Church
Copyright 2004, 2006 by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved. Use restricted to the posted notice.