The Imminent Pre-wrath View of the Rapture

[For a complete presentation of this topic see: What the Bible Says About the Future, Chapter Eight: “The Rapture,” and The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church, both by the author. Available online at www.biblicalreader.com]

The imminent pre-wrath view of the rapture holds that the rapture is imminent, and that it will occur before God’s wrath is manifested at the day of the Lord. This view does not require the rapture to occur pretribulationally. According to his view, the rapture could occur anytime from the present until the moment prior to God’s wrath being poured out in the tribulation period. The major difference between this view and classic pretribulationism is that pretribulationism is build on the assumption that the entire tribulation period is divine wrath, whereas the imminent pre-wrath view does not make that assumption, but instead leaves the beginning point of the day of the Lord as indefinite (though likely associated with the seventh seal of Revelation). The imminent pre-wrath view should not be confused with Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view. While both of these views employ the term “pre-wrath” in their name, they are very different conceptually. (Pretribulationism and midtribulationism are also “pre-wrath” views even though the term “pre-wrath” is usually not employed to describe them.) The following paragraphs will deal with establishing that 1) the rapture is imminent, 2) the rapture will be “pre-wrath” and, 3) that the proposition cannot be sustained that the entire tribulation period is divine wrath. Since the imminent pre-wrath view presents the only scenario compatible with all three of these points, the establishment of all three points constitutes evidence supporting the imminent pre-wrath view.

[A note on terminology: Views that place the rapture at a particular point on the tribulation timeline, or that make the rapture contingent on the transpiring of any tribulation event(s) are referred to here as “fix-point” or “contingent” views of the rapture. Pretribulationism and the imminent pre-wrath view are non-fixed-point, non-contingent views. Midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism are fixed-point, contingent views. In studying the timing of the rapture relative to the tribulation, it is essential to recognize the major paradigm difference in these two sets of views.]

The Rapture is Imminent

The rapture is imminent; that is, there are no prophesied events that must be fulfilled before the rapture occurs. However, this does not mean the rapture must be pretribulational to satisfy the requirement of imminency. In order for imminency to prove pretribulationism, one would have to be comparing pretribulationism only to views that “fix” the rapture at a specific point within the tribulation (making the rapture a contingent event and hence, non-imminent--as is the case with midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism). In such a limited comparison, only the pretribulational view passes the test, but only because of a reductive error in the procedure, since we excluded any other possibilities. However, we could postulate a non-fixed view consistent with imminency by suggesting that the rapture could occur at any time up to the point at which God’s wrath is poured out--whenever that may be, thus allowing for an “event window” from the present to the terminal point (i.e., the outpouring of divine wrath). Notice that in this scenario we have not fixed the rapture at any point either before or during the tribulation, and therefore, we have not made it contingent on any prior events. Such a view would be completely consistent with imminency, since we would not know when the rapture will occur, or what--if any--events will precede it.

If we explore this a little further we might anticipate an objection something like this: “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 unspecified events that would have to precede a pretribulational rapture too. Imminency doesn’t mean that there are no events that precede the rapture; it means that it’s not contingent on any specified events taking place first. It follows then that the rapture doesn’t have to be pretribulational to be imminent. As long as the rapture is not contingent on any specified events (i.e., any prophesied events which must precede it) it’s imminent. Allowing the possibility that the rapture might (potentially) occur within the tribulation does not make it contingent. Therefore, since imminency does not preclude the rapture from occurring within the tribulation, logically it cannot be appealed to as support for pretribulationism (though it certainly is a valid argument against midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism—all of which “fix” the rapture within the tribulation, making it contingent on the transpiring of certain specified future events.) This will seem a bit odd for many pretribulationists, since imminency and pretribulationism have long been assumed to go hand in hand. Nevertheless, imminency, while compatible with pretribulationism, is not a proof, since it can be shown to be compatible with our non-pretribulational hypothesis. This is, of course, just one more example of how we so often fall victim to reductionistic thinking in theology.

There has been much discussion in regard to the imminence of the rapture, and a great deal of the confusion has resulted from two factors: 1) Those who hold to fixed-point views have no reason to argue the case for imminency; and 2) pretribulationists have relinquished the strongest biblical proof of imminency for fear that the result might lend support to non-pretribulational views. Pretribulationists struggle in their attempt to prove imminency because they are forced to reject the clearest reference to the imminency of the rapture contained within the New Testament, which is Matthew 24:36-44. They fear that acknowledging this passage as a reference to the rapture might ultimately lend support to posttribulationism (since the immediate context of vv.36-44 is the tribulation and the second coming), or partial rapturism (since the parallel passage in Luke 21:36 has been used by partial rapturists). They also see dire implications for pretribulationism flowing out of Luke 21:36, which is the parallel passage to Matthew 24:36-44 (if this passage refers to the rapture, it implies a degree of uncertainly with respect to its timing in relation to the tribulation).

Unfortunately, this approach is somewhat like cutting off one’s head to cure a cold. Matthew 24:36-44 must refer to either the rapture or the second coming, yet on the basis of comparison it seems impossible 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 instantaneous (vv.40-41). Yet Christ, in the immediate prior context, stated the opposite in regard to his second coming (i.e., it will be public (vv.27-28), and attended by signs (v.30) --not to mention the fact that it will be possible to calculate the exact day of Christ’s return once the abomination occurs (based on information contained both in Daniel and in Revelation). Those who deny this passage refers to the rapture usually regard Matthew 24:36-44 in the following manner. 1) They hold that Matthew 24:36-44 cannot describe the rapture because verse 39 indicates those taken are taken in judgment (which, if true, would be more compatible with the second coming than the rapture). Matthew 13:49 (along with other verses in Mathew 13 that speak of the removal of the unrighteous at the end of the age) are sometimes offered as supporting context. 2) Since the parallel passage in Luke 21:36, if taken to refer to the rapture, would suggest uncertainty regarding its timing in relation to tribulation events, pretribulationists are forced to dismiss the notion that Luke 21:36 and it’s parallel, Matthew 24:36-44, refer to the rapture. That dismissal and linkage of this passage to the second coming is lacking both in theological and exegetical support. It is lacking in theological support for the reason given above (i.e., that the appearing of Christ described in this passage is secret [vv.36,42,44], unannounced and unexpected [vv.36-39,43,44], and instantaneous [vv.40-41]; whereas the second coming is to be public [vv.27-28] and attended by signs [v.30]). It is lacking in exegetical support for the following reasons. The reference to those “taken away” in the flood in 24:39 is not analogous to the ones “taken” (in judgment) in vv. 40-41, but to those who are to be left to endure the day of the Lord. This is a case of misidentification produced by attempting to press the analogical details of the flood illustration (v.39) beyond the bounds of what it was intended to convey (in this case the flood is simply an illustration of the sudden and unexpected nature of the event described in verses 40‑41). It might be easy to make such a misidentification in 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 “take” (or [past tense] “took”). However, the Greek text employs an entirely different vocabulary for those the flood “took” in judgment (v.39, Gr. ēre, 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 the ones “taken” (i.e., “received to Himself”) in verses 40-41 to be compared to those “forsaken” in judgment at the flood. Of course, the passages cited as supporting context from Matthew 13 refer to a completely different time and event--the second coming—at which time Christ will remove the unsaved in judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). However, as we have seen, there is no reason to believe Matthew 24:36-44 is describing the second coming, therefore, it has no direct connection to the Matthew 13 material. 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 connection of this passage to the second coming, simply because it poses a problem for pretribulationism, is eisegetical (it reads one’s theology into the passage). Given the particulars of Matthew 24:36-44, this passage could only have been spoken in reference to the rapture, and it clearly establishes the biblical case for the imminency of the rapture in three explicit statements (vv.26,42, and 44), and two very clear illustrations (vv.37-39, and 43).

The history of imminency appears to be this: The Lord explicitly taught the imminency of his return for His own in Matthew 24:36-44, even though he did not articulate all of the details of the rapture, and owing to His explicit teaching on this subject there is a general expectation of imminency throughout the New Testament, seen in very subtle ways, as well as in the early church; but when modern-day pretribulationists linked Matthew 24:36-44 to the second coming they inadvertently “jerked the rug” out from under the fountainhead of biblical support for the doctrine of imminency, and quite coincidentally left themselves with only the vestiges of this truth which the early church saw clearly to be Christ’s own explicit teaching. The wonderful truth, however, is that when Matthew 24:36-44 is seen for what it actually says, the doctrine of the imminency of the rapture comes right back into razor-sharp focus.

The Rapture Will Precede the Time of Divine Wrath

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 (i.e., that the Church will be spared divine wrath by means of the rapture) is biblically and theologically correct. 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), 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 (whenever it begins).

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 divine wrath is limited to a portion of the second half of the tribulation period. Of the three major portions of Scripture 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 come; and who is able to stand.”

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 is certainly possible that the sixth seal (physical disturbances in the sky and on the earth) is the final warning that God’s wrath is imminent, since it forebodes events which elsewhere in Scripture are specifically linked to the day of the Lord (e.g., Isa. 34:4). In any case, there can be absolutely no doubt that the seventh seal to follow includes divine wrath. Both Revelation 15:1 and 16:1 specifically associate the bowl judgments (that occur during the time of the seventh seal) with divine wrath.

[Rev. 15:1] I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues—last because with them God’s wrath is completed.

[Rev. 16:1] Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.”

While the passages cited above do not prove that events which precede the seventh seal are not divine wrath, they underscore the lack of biblical support for the notion that the first six seals are the wrath of God. If all of the seals are divine wrath it would certainly be odd that wrath is not mentioned until after the first six seals are past.

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 protection from at least some of the effects of divine wrath, does the time of their sealing not suggest that the divine wrath is imminent? It is perhaps not without significance that from this point forward, God’s witness in the world becomes the domain of these Jews, twelve thousand men from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Is this a qualitative shift, indicating a major change in the character of the period?

There is an additional problem with identifying the entire tribulation as divine wrath, and that problem involves the nature of the fifth seal of Revelation. 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. As a pretribulationist, I was always at a loss to explain how the suffering and death of perhaps millions of God’s faithful could be attributed to a direct act of God--especially an act characterized as “divine wrath.” Of course the problem isn’t that believers are going to die. Believers have died for their faith in every generation. The problem is whether or not God makes saved people the targets of His wrath. Unquestionably, the exercise of divine wrath is by nature “active” rather than passive (just consider the the meaning of “wrath”). If the fifth seal is divine wrath, then the fifth seal depicts God making saved people the objects of His wrath. If on the other hand the fifth seal represents events that God has decided to sovereignly allow, it is the direct cause (Satan, his agents, and evil men), not God, who are responsible for this moral evil. That the events of the fifth seal represent unspeakable moral evil allowed by God, rather than divine wrath directly 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 is to imply that God is the active cause of this evil against the saints. If God condemns the evil committed under the fifth seal (which He does in Revelation 8:1-6, esp. v.3, cf. 6:9‑10), how can anyone maintain that this event is God’s righteous judgment upon the world? Such would appear to be an indictment against God. Suffice it to say that there are serious difficulties in proving that the entire tribulation is divine wrath.

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, but 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’s the same altar that is mentioned in 6:9, from which the saints who were so cruelly killed (under the fifth seal) made their petition to God for vengeance (wrath) upon those who dwell upon the earth. The imagery is clear. God is now ready to judge the world, and every evil deed will be recompensed in full! Isn’t that what divine wrath is all about? The implication seems unmistakable. Could it be that 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, and now God intends to judge them by an unprecedented outpouring of divine wrath?

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. The world has had wars, famines, death, and to some extent even 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 destruction from space, an entire ocean destroyed, a poisonous substance from space contaminating much of the earth’s fresh water, a third of the sun and moon and stars stricken, a global demonic plague, demons released to kill 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?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Paul says,

(1) 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 deceived those who are perishing. They perish because they refuse 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.

Let’s make some observations from this passage.

1) It is 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) He 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, it’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 Lawless One (the Antichrist) had yet occurred, (vv.3-4).

4) He explains how the Lawless One will be clearly revealed. It will occur in this manner, he will oppose the worship of anything or anyone else and he will set himself up in the temple proclaiming himself to be God, (v.4).

5) Paul expressed surprise that the Thessalonians didn’t remember what he had taught them 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 Lawless One will be restrained from revealing himself until the one restraining is taken out of the way, (vv.6-7).

7) The revealing of the Lawless One 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 Lawless One is revealed, God will send a powerful delusion on those who have rejected the truth to follow the Lawless One. They will be deluded to believe the lie that this pretender is actually God!

From these observations we can make some deductions. First, there isn’t a hint of pretribulationism in this passage. 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 tribulation events and say, “You cannot be in the day of the Lord because the Antichrist has not yet committed the abomination in the temple, and these other tribulation events I’ve listed haven’t happened either.” Such an approach would seem very odd, and certainly prone to doctrinal confusion. Secondly, Paul states 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. Some pretribulationists have interpreted the “falling away” as a veiled reference to the rapture, and the revealing of the Man of Lawlessness as a reference to the rider on the white horse, who appears in the first seal of Revelation at the beginning of the tribulation. However, Paul clearly intends for us to understand that the “revealing” of the Lawless One is his revealing in 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 the temple. 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 (jumping back) to the midpoint beginning in verse 15. (See, “Understanding the Chronologies of Daniel, Matthew 24:3-31, and Revelation 6:1-20:3,” by the author). 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); apparently not all who profess Christ will be willing to die for Him. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 describes the 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 are describing the same set of events. This being the case, the great truth that Paul reveals in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is that the day of the Lord, and the wrath associated with it, do not begin until late in the tribulation, sometime in the second half.

Conclusions

The observations above make for a compelling case that the wrath of God is not manifested until sometime in the second half of the tribulation period; and even if all of the information I have given in the preceding paragraphs were proved to be irrelevant or invalid, there is still no positive biblical or theological support for identifying the entire tribulation period as divine wrath. That being the case, pretribulationism can be seen to be 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 presumption (from both the New Testament and early Church history) of an imminent rapture and what we are left with is an “imminent, pre-wrath rapture.”

How would we describe an “imminent, pre-wrath rapture?” The concept of an imminent pre-wrath rapture involves not a fixed-point event (as is the case with midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism), but rather a rapture occurring within a “window,” sometime between the present and the outpouring of divine wrath (which point we need not take a definite position on, 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 divine wrath (and we can continue to debate when that might be). 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.

Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com

Adapted from The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church

And, What the Bible Says About the Future

Page-Formatted PDF versions available at:

www.biblicalreader.com/books/iprapture/iprapture.html

See full copyright notice posted at:

http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm

All Scripture taken from the New International Version (NIV)

of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.