Midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, partial rapturism, and posttribulationism are all seriously defective, either from lack of biblical support, or faulty logic. 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). It is possible that all of these views are inaccurate, including pretribulationism.
While it’s not impossible that one might run into a peripheral argument not mentioned here, the following are the classic arguments which one encounters in the writings of capable proponents of pretribulationism. There are essentially seven arguments. 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 “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 last two. 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 that are offered 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 is about 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 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 you are already committed to the pretribulational view makes perfect sense, but really has no value in establishing the position. My guess is that most pretribulationists view statements like this as simply “supporting observations,” rather than formal proofs.
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, 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 removed prior to the manifestation of the Antichrist (which is assumed to refer to the Antichrist’s coming to power at the beginning of the tribulation). 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 merely assumed (by pretribulationists) that He is the restrainer‑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 for anyone to be saved after the rapture. 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 poured into this passage, but it would be impossible to argue pretribulationism simply on the basis of what this passage actually says.
I think a better interpretation of this passage is 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 would indicate that the day of the Lord (the “container” for the wrath of God, among other things) does not 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 late in the tribulation period. (According to Matthew 24:4-28, the martyrdom and apostasy occur after the midpoint‑the midpoint is marked by the abomination in the temple, cf. Dan. 9:27.) I 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. It may well be that this passage provides information that argues directly contrary to the pretribulationist’s premise that the entire tribulation is divine wrath. We will come back to this passage after we have looked at all of the remaining arguments for pretribulationism.
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:
(7) 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 known as the 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 positively identify the entire seven-year period of tribulation as a time of divine wrath. In fact, there is strong indication from Scripture that the day of the Lord (the period under which divine wrath is manifested) occurs 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.
Those are the five minor arguments that are sometimes used to support pretribulationism. Now we come to the two heavy arguments that most, if not all, pretribulational proponents hold to have strong proof 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. 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; the major premise: the Church will be raptured prior to the outpouring of divine wrath; the minor premise: the entire seven-year tribulation is divine wrath; the conclusion: the Church must be raptured prior to the beginning of the tribulation. While it may seem too obvious to state, it is 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 supported. Herein is the problem with this argument as a proof for pretribulationism-there is no firm exegetical or theological support for the minor premise (that the entire period is divine wrath). 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. Although for many years as a pretribulationist I recognized the need to support this minor premise, I was always at a loss for biblical support, and I had to resort to an inference like this: “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” (a sort of 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.” With that I made my case!
So, is a seal, a seal, or what? Of course the seals are pieces of a larger structure and thus there is some type of “homogeneity.” However, that does not mean that they are all divine wrath. We could just as well suggest that the homogeneity consists in the fact that they are all events of the same period (i.e., Daniel’s seventieth week, according to Dan. 9:24-27), and that does not mean they are all the global outpouring of divine wrath. Is it plausible that the seals represent events within the seven-year period leading up to the second coming, but that not all of those events are divine wrath? Pretribulationists make the point that the Book of Revelation pictures Christ, in Heaven, breaking the seals, and that certainly makes them “divine,” but it doesn’t make all of them “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 does not 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 inference, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 may well indicate that the day of the Lord does not even begin until sometime after the middle of the period.
There is an additional problem for the pretribulational position. It is a problem with which I struggled for a long time. 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.” Whenever I was asked about this my response‑not meant to be insensitive‑was, “Well, after the rapture, some people are going to be saved and many of them are going to die horrible deaths; God doesn’t promise those saved after the rapture exemption from the effects of the tribulation.” (We can be so “glib” about things we think don’t affect us directly.) Such a response, I now see, was merely sidestepping the issue because 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 objects of His wrath. Unquestionably, divine wrath is by nature “active” rather than “passive” (just consider the word “wrath” for a moment). 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 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; therefore, they could only have held to the 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. All the other 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. For example, if you fix the rapture at the middle of the tribulation, then the events of the first half of the period must take place before the rapture can occur; likewise with the pre-wrath and posttribulational views.
If one dismisses the partial rapture view on soteriological grounds, and for lack of support and considers only the remaining four views as viable, then the issue of imminency could be used to decisively identify which one of the four views would be the correct one. The correct view would have to be the pretribulational view, because it is the only one of these four remaining views that is consistent with imminency. But wait! Did you notice the subtle condition necessary for this logic to work? In order for imminency to support pretribulationism, one has to be comparing pretribulationism only with views that “fix” the rapture at a specific point within the tribulation. In such a comparison only the pretribulational view passes the test, but only because of a reductive error in our procedure (since we arbitrarily excluded any other possibilities). However, what if we broaden the comparison to include a nonstandard view? (Nonstandard only because we haven’t been thinking “outside the box”) What if we 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.” Notice that in this view we are not “fixing” the rapture at any particular point either before or during the tribulation, therefore, we are not necessitating any “prior events” and thus not violating the concept of imminency. Since we don’t know when it’s going to happen, it’s still imminent!
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 which would have to precede a pretribulational rapture-that is, events known only to God. Imminency doesn’t mean that there are no events that precede the rapture; it means that as far as man is concerned, it could happen at any time.
What I’m seeking to demonstrate is that the rapture doesn’t have to be pretribulational to be imminent. As long as man does not know when it will occur, or what, if any, events will precede it, it’s still imminent. Therefore, since imminency does not preclude the rapture from occurring within the tribulation, logically, it cannot be appealed to as support for pretribulationism. 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 at least one non-pretribulational hypothesis. This is, of course, just one more example of how we so often fall victim to “reductionistic thinking.”
Up to this point we have simply critiqued the arguments offered in favor of pretribulationism. We don’t have to “prove” that pretribulationism is wrong. Pretribulationists have to prove the view is right, and so far no compelling proof has been offered. However, I would now like to turn attention to what may be a very significant argument against pretribulationism.
In one of our previous discussions I briefly mentioned the problem of using 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 as support for pretribulationism. I would now like to make the case that this same 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 says quite plainly that the day of the Lord (the period that contains 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 support for pretribulationism, there is instead a powerful reason to reject pretribulationism’s 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” and “the day of the Lord” are not coextensive‑as required in pretribulationism’s major argument (the wrath argument). Second, it leaves open the possibility that the Church could be raptured anytime up to a point well within the tribulation period (as late as sometime in the second half of the period). Remember, as we have seen above, this would not violate the imminency principle, as long as the point at which the rapture occurs remains indefinite-i.e. not “fixed” on a timeline. 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 an event “window” within which the rapture could occur.
Let’s take a look at 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.
Now 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, as I have
said before, 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 tribulation events and say, “See, you aren’t in the day of the Lord
because the Antichrist has not yet committed his abomination in the temple,
and these other tribulation events haven’t happened either.” Such an
approach would seem very odd, and certainly prone to 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. 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. If Paul is referring to the same set of events to which Christ refers in
Matthew 24:9-25, as seems to be the case, the central argument of
pretribulationism (that the entire tribulation is divine wrath) is not only
unproved, but it is proved to be wrong.
While there has been much discussion in regard to the imminence of the rapture, a great deal of the confusion has resulted from two factors: 1) Those who hold to fixed point views have no reason to demonstrate the truth of 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 only clear 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 (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 theological comparison it seems impossible that this passage could be referring 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. Matthew 13:49 (along with other verses in Mathew 13 which speak of the removal of the unrighteous at the end of the age) are sometimes offered in support. 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 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. While it might be easy to make this misidentification in the English, since the words “took them all away” (v.39) and “one will be taken” (vv.40-41) employ the same word “take” (or [past tense] “took”), the Greek text employs an entirely different vocabulary for those the flood “took” (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” at the flood. Also, the passages often cited as support from Matthew 13 refer to a completely different time and event when Christ, at his second coming, will remove the unsaved (Matthew 25:31-46). There is simply no connection between the Matthew 13 material and the event described in Matthew 24:36-44. 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). It could just as well be that this passage is simply an injunction similar to the one in Matthew 24:20. 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 no less than three explicit statements (vv.26,42, and 44), and two 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 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 (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” 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.
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 passages from which it is possible to discern any tribulation chronology (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:3‑31; and Revelation 6-19) the only passage that specifically delineates elements of the tribulation as “divine wrath” is Revelation 6:16-17 which 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 brakets 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.
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? We see also that immediately after the sealing of these witnesses, John describes the great multitude of saints in heaven, of every nation, tribe, and people; a multitude so great they are without number. Is it significant that they appear in Heaven at this point, just prior to the breaking of the seventh seal?
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 is 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 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 this great 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’re 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?
These observations, combined with 2 Thessalonians 2:3‑4 (which appears to state that the day of the Lord will not come until after the revealing of the Antichrist), 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 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. Therefore, we must conclude that while the rapture might occur before the tribulation begins, the pretribulational rapture position, which requires that it be so, is simply improvable.
Copyright 2005, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com
Adapted from The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of
the Church
Copyright 2004, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Page-Formatted PDF version 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.