Chapter 5: 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 temptation 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 pretribulationism, 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 theologically 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.
What do we know that is biblically and theologically certain
that is relevant to the question of the timing of the rapture? Actually 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 biblical or
theological evidence that has come to light that definitively locates the wrath
of God as commencing at the beginning, or anytime 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 sometime 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 tribulation 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 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 statement 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 pretribulationism
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 possible, 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 imminency. (Thought
James does appear to explicitly state the imminency 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 illustration 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
description of this event, as we noted above, it fits only the rapture.
2) The supporting passages cited from Matthew 13 refer to a completely
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 admonition 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 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”
quintessential 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 salvation 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 identification 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.
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 significance 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 continual 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 communicating 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 difference? 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.
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 outpouring 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 five, 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.