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 arguments. (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—and held and taught
the pretribulational view for over thirty years before coming to the
conclusions presented here.)
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 arguments. 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 arguments 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 necessitate 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 tribulation 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 manifestation 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 professing 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 Jerusalem, 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 Philadelphian 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 irrelevant 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
pretribulational 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 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 outpouring 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
Revelation 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 theological
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 position. 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 unspeakable 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 perpetrators 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 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);
therefore, 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 remaining 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.
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 understanding
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 argument. Second, if the day of the LORD
doesn’t begin until sometime 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 beginning 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 himself 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 lawlessness 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 splendor 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 wickedness.
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 communication, 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 “rebellion” 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 Four, taken from: The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church
Copyright 2003, 2006 by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved. Use restricted to the posted notice.