Current Viewpoints on the Timing of
the
Rapture of the Church
The date at which the rapture will occur cannot be known since scripture does not reveal the length of the church age, and as you may be aware, there are a number of competing views as to how the rapture relates chronologically to the tribulation period. (I refer to this as “relative timing.”) We will look at six current views and their arguments. Five of these views are dispensational; one is covenantal. The individual views are not critiqued here; I will simply list the arguments offered by each view.
While I will not go into a full-blown discussion of the differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology, it is important to know that one’s orientation on this issue will have profound consequences for the study of the rapture, as well as the study of future prophecy in general. (For an excellent discussion on this subject see, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, by Renald Showers, available from Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry [www.foi.org].) Also, see What the Bible Says About the Future (Chapter 3) by the author, available as a free download from Biblical Reader Communications (www.bibicalreader.com). Covenantalists make no distinction between “Israel” and “the Church,” preferring instead to view all redeemed people throughout history as part of the same body, whether called “the Church,” or “Israel.” Since the Bible says that there will be saved people present throughout the tribulation, covenantal interpreters take this to mean that the rapture does not occur until the second coming of Christ (if they have a view on the rapture at all—some do not). All forms of covenant theology that hold to a viewpoint on the rapture are, therefore, “post-tribulational,” placing the rapture at the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, among dispensationalists (who do see a distinction between Israel and the Church) the pretribulational view, that the rapture occurs prior to the beginning of the tribulation, has been the dominant view. However, there are four other views associated with dispensationalism; they are the imminent pre-wrath view, which states that the rapture is imminent and pre-wrath, and possibility but not necessarily pretribulational; midtribulationism, which places the rapture in the middle of the tribulation; Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, which places the rapture sometime in the second half of the tribulation; and partial rapturism, which places the rapture prior to the tribulation, but holds that only those believers who are prepared will be raptured, the rest will be left to go through the tribulation. We will now take a look at each of these views and their primary supporting arguments. As you will see, all of these views depend entirely on deductive argumentation since there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly states when the rapture will occur.
Pretribulationism states that the rapture will (must) occur prior to the beginning of the coming seven-year period of tribulation. The following arguments are those generally used in support of the pretribulational view.
1. The Bible indicates that the rapture is an “imminent” event and the pretribulational position is the only view compatible with imminency. In other words, according to pretribulationism, if the Bible teaches that Christ might return for the Church at any moment, that fact would imply pretribulationism, since any of the other views would require at least some intervening events (of the tribulation) to take place prior to the rapture. For example, neither the midtribulational view nor Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view hold to an imminent rapture since both of these views would require that certain tribulation events must transpire before the rapture takes place, and the same could be said of the posttribulational view.
2. The Church is not the object of God’s wrath. Pretribulationism maintains that the entire seven-year period of the tribulation is divine wrath. Since Paul is clear that the Church is not to be the object of God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess.1:9-10; 5:9), pretribulationists conclude that the rapture must occur before the tribulation begins. The principle passage used is 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, where Paul says,
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.
Given the fact that this passage appears immediately after a discussion of the rapture in 4:13-18 and the coming time of wrath in 5:1-8, and that it alludes to the two conditions of the saints at the time of the rapture as those “awake” [alive] and those “asleep” [dead] (5:10 cf. 4:14-17), it is apparent that Paul is referring to the Church’s rapture prior to the outpouring of divine wrath in the tribulation. This same thought is also expressed earlier in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 as Paul refers to the fact that the Thessalonians were waiting for Christ, “who rescues us from the coming wrath.” Given the context of this book (cf. 5:1-11) it is apparent that Paul had in mind the wrath associated with the day of the LORD. Pretribulationists point out that posttribulationists place themselves in a difficult position on the wrath issue, because their conception of the rapture places the Church on earth through the entire tribulation period. Since posttribulationists must agree that the Church is not the object of God’s wrath, they are forced to “spiritualize” (i.e., allegorize) many of the tribulation judgments in order to lessen the severity of their impact on the Church. In response, posttribulationists suggest that the Church need not be removed from the earth in order to be preserved through the wrath. However, a more literal, or “normal” interpretation of these prophecies seems to preclude that the Church could be present on the earth and be unaffected by the catastrophic, global judgments that are associated with the outpouring of divine wrath in the day of the LORD.
3. The tribulation is a resumption of God’s program for Israel and there is no reason for the Church to be present. This argument says that the tribulation period marks the resumption of God’s program for Israel. This can be seen in the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy “weeks” (Dan. 9:24-27) in which the seventy “weeks” relate to the nation of Israel (v. 24), with the seventieth “week” representing the tribulation period. According to this argument, since the church age is parenthetical to God’s program for Israel (it occurs outside the prophesied program for Israel, falling between the 69th and 70th “weeks” of the seventy “weeks” prophecy in Daniel 9:24‑27), and it is reasonable to assume that the Church is to be raptured sometime in advance of the second coming, then the rapture most likely occurs prior to the beginning of the tribulation period. This is generally not offered as a conclusive argument but more as a supporting argument since it does not necessitate a pretribulational rapture.
The imminent pre-wrath view states that the rapture is imminent, but recognizes that pretribulationism’s premise that the entire tribulation is divine wrath is not biblically or logically sustainable. Thus, this view maintains that while the rapture could occur at any time (including pretribulationally), it is not essential that it occur before the tribulation period begins; however, it must occur before the beginning of the outpouring of divine wrath at the day of the LORD. While accepting the doctrine of the imminency of the rapture, this view maintains that imminency does not require the rapture to be pretribulational. The major arguments supporting this view are as follows.
1. The rapture is imminent. The imminent pre-wrath view, like pretribulationism, maintains that the rapture is an imminent event; however, unlike pretribulationism, it does not accept the proposition that imminency necessitates a pretribulational rapture. This view maintains that imminency would only require a pretribulational rapture if the rapture is viewed “sequently” (i.e., as an event in sequence with the tribulation events). It is perfectly reasonable to view the rapture “non-sequently”(i.e., imminent without regard to future events) in which case it does not have to be the first event on the prophetic timetable in order to be imminent. [To illustrate the difference between sequent and non-sequent views of the rapture, let’s say we have fifty cards; and for each card we write the name of some future tribulation event, and we sort the cards in order. Let’s also make a card for the rapture. Now, if we put the rapture in the middle of the stack and begin to turn the cards over one by one (simulating the passage of each event), the rapture wouldn’t be imminent since we couldn’t turn it over until we had turned over all the cards that precede it in the stack. The only way the rapture could be imminent would be if it were the first card in the stack. Applying this analogy: according to pretribulationism the rapture is the first card and it is therefore imminent, but mid-tribulationism, Rosenthal pre-wrath rapturism, and posttribulationism do not place the rapture card first; thus, these theories do not view the rapture as imminent. That’s the sequent conception of the rapture. Now let’s look at an alternative conception (one we could call a “non-sequent” view of the rapture). We will use the same stack of cards, but instead of putting the rapture card with the stack, we will put it off to the side, with the provision that it can be turned over at any time. Before we even turn the first card the rapture is imminent, because it could be turned over first. But if it isn’t turned over first, it’s still imminent because it could be turned over next. (Remember, the rapture card isn’t subject to the sequence of the stack.) Again, if it isn’t turned over next it remains imminent until it is finally turned over.] (For further discussion of this point see, Is the Doctrine of Imminency Capable of Proving Pretribulationism? by the author).
2. The rapture must precede the period of divine wrath. The argument here is essentially the same as found in pretribulationism, except that the imminent pre-wrath position does not view the entire tribulation as divine wrath (see below).
3. It is impossible to prove that the entire tribulation period is a time of divine wrath (as required by pretribulationism). This is one of the critical distinctions between the imminent pre-wrath view and pretribulationism. If one accepts the wrath argument (that the church must be raptured prior to the manifestation of divine wrath at the day of the LORD); and if one accepts the proposition that the entire tribulation period is a time of divine wrath, then pretribulationism would be the only logical position. However, the imminent pre-wrath position maintains that it cannot be proven that the entire tribulation period is a time of divine wrath, thus pretribulationism’s application of the wrath argument fails, and in the absence of support from imminency (see above), pretribulationism defaults back to simply an imminent pre-wrath view. The following observations support the imminent pre-wrath view’s contention that it cannot be demonstrated that the entire tribulation period is a time of divine wrath.
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,
[6:16-17] …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 portends 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 no doubt that the seventh seal which follows includes divine wrath. Both Revelation 15:1 and 16:1 specifically associate the bowl judgments, which occur during the time of the seventh seal, with divine wrath.
[Revelation 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. [NASB]
[Revelation 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.” [NASB]
While the passages cited above do not prove the events that 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 were divine wrath it would certainly be odd that wrath is not mentioned until after the first six seals are past.
Another passage that seems to indicate that divine wrath is limited to a portion of the second half of the tribulation is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9. Here Paul states emphatically that the day of the LORD is not going to begin until after the Man of Lawlessness (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 revealing of the Antichrist at the beginning of the tribulation. However, Paul intends for us to understand the “revealing” of the Lawless One as his revealing in the temple (v.4), and that event, as we know from Daniel 9:27, occurs at the midpoint. Since verses 3-5 comprise 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 the 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 Figure 7.4, p.169). The thing we need to notice is that the particulars of the events given by Paul in 2Thessalonians 2:3-12 is precisely the same set of particulars given by Christ in Matthew 24:9-25. The Lord said the abomination in the temple will be accompanied by false miracles and spiritual deception (v. 24), and will be followed by a great persecution and martyrdom of the saints (v. 9), along with a great “falling away” from the faith (vv. 10-13). Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 describes the 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”). We see then that both the Lord and Paul were describing the same set of events. This being the case, Paul could not have been referring to events that will occur at the beginning of the tribulation, he must have been describing events that will occur beginning at the midpoint and continuing forward into the second half of the period. The additional piece of information that Paul’s account yields is that the day of the LORD (and consequently the wrath associated with it) will not begin until sometime after the events he has described (i.e., in the second half of the period); that pushes the terminal point at which the rapture could occur perhaps well into the second half of the tribulation period (thought there may be other reasons why the rapture would need to occur sooner.) As has been pointed out, this would not violate the concept of imminency, as long as the time of the event itself is left indefinite (i.e., as long as it is not made contingent to any other events). Since the fifth seal (martyrdom of the saints), which begins almost immediately after the midpoint, cannot be classified as divine wrath, it seems apparent that divine wrath begins either with the sixth or seventh seal. Since the natural transition in the book of Revelation is between the sixth and seventh seals, rather than between the fifth and sixth seals (again, see the previous discussion of the problems with pretribulationism’s wrath argument), it seems likely that the day of the LORD begins during the time of the seventh seal. In any case, the biblical evidence indicates that it does not begin until sometime in the second half of the period. As was said previously, any correct view of the rapture must be compatible with imminency. When we match that with the evidence that the terminal point at which the rapture could occur is actually late in the seven-year period, the imminent pre-wrath view is the only view that meets these criteria.
The midtribulational view takes the position that the rapture will occur approximately in the middle of the tribulation. This view, which experienced limited popularity at one time, has largely given way to Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view. The basis for midtribulationism is a chronology of the tribulation that places the rapture in Revelation 11:11-15, equating the seventh trumpet of Revelation (11:15) with the trumpet call of the rapture (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16).
Revelation 11:11-12 reads:
But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
According to this view, since the Church is not raptured until the seventh trumpet of Revelation (which midtribulationists view as occurring at the midpoint of the period) the seals and trumpets of Revelation cannot be equated with divine wrath–that would result in the Church suffering the wrath of God. Midtribulationists generally view the seals and trumpets as human or satanic wrath, similar to persecution in any age, but far more intense. (If you are familiar with Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, you will readily see the resemblance between these two views. They are clearly built on the same platform)
Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view divides the tribulation period into three distinct time periods: the “beginning of sorrows” which occupies the first three and one-half years; the “great tribulation” beginning at the midpoint of the period and extending to approximately the breaking of the seventh seal (possibly eighteen to twenty-four month prior to the second coming); and the “day of the LORD” beginning at the breaking of the seventh seal and culminating at the second coming. According to this view only the day of the LORD represents divine wrath. Since the Church need only escape the period of divine wrath, the rapture need not occur until just prior to the outpouring of that wrath, or approximately eighteen to twenty-four months prior to the second coming of Christ. It is important to understand that this view doesn’t simply establish a last point at which the rapture could occur. It “fixes” the rapture at this late point in the tribulation, drawing a connection between the trumpet of the rapture and the trumpet judgments of Revelation. This view and midtribulationism and posttribulationism are contingent views, since they make the rapture contingent upon (subsequent to) some future event or events.
Rosenthal’s view has many similarities with the midtribulational view, but is more elaborate. Arguments offered in favor of the pre-wrath view are as follows.
1. The difficulties of the “great tribulation” (as defined by Rosenthal) do not represent divine wrath, but rather the wrath of man and Satan; therefore, there is no theological necessity for the Church to be absent from the great tribulation. (Recall that according to this view, the great tribulation precedes the outpouring of divine wrath.)
2. The day of the LORD, which is the time of divine wrath, does not commence until the breaking of the seventh seal. This is based on the observation that the seventh seal embodies the celestial judgments, which elsewhere in Scripture seem to be characteristic of the day of the LORD (cf. Joel 2:30-31; Isa. 13:9-10). In fact, according to Rosenthal, Joel 2:30-31 implies that the day of the LORD cannot begin until these signs are manifested. Joel says:
“I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” [Joel 2:30-31,]
3. Malachi 4:5-6 indicates that Elijah will be sent before the coming of the day of the LORD. If Elijah is to be identified as one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3, then the day of the LORD probably could not commence until sometime after the midpoint of the period.
4. The last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is most likely a reference to the trumpet judgments embodied in the seventh seal. Believers will be raptured in connection with the trumpets of Revelation, but before the outpouring of divine wrath embodied within the bowl judgments. (Note the close similarity with midtribulationism.)
The partial rapture view says there will be a rapture prior to the beginning of the tribulation (similar to pretribulationism), but not all believers will be taken; only those who are prepared will be raptured, the remainder who are not raptured will be left to go through the tribulation. Like midtribulationism, partial rapturism has never been a widely held view. Support is derived primarily from the following passages: Matthew 24:40-51; 25:1-13; Luke 20:34-36; 21:36; Philippians 3:8-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:8; Hebrews 9:24-28, and Revelation 3:3 and 3:10. Partial rapturists believe that each of these passages in some way indicates that only believers who are waiting expectantly at the time of the rapture will be taken. The partial rapture view is strictly an Arminian (semi-Pelagian) view; however, it has found little acceptance even among Arminains.
Covenant theology manifests itself in three distinct forms: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and covenant premillennialism. Amillennialism and postmillennialism both subscribe to a view of the tribulation and the millennium, that is highly “spiritualized” or “allegorized” (meaning that they interpret these prophecies to mean something other than what one would assume from a “normal” reading of the text). As such, the rapture is not really a distinguishable event from the second coming, which according to both of these views occurs after the millennium. Since there is no rapture as a distinguishable event in amillennialism and postmillennialism there is nothing to critique, except for the millennial views themselves, and that is beyond our topic. However, we will look at covenant premillennialism (commonly referred to simply as “posttribulationism”) because it is widely held, and therefore of considerable importance.
Posttribulationism (more precisely referred to as “covenant premillennialism”) is the belief that the Church will pass through the tribulation to be raptured in conjunction with the second coming of Christ. Posttribulationism takes two forms, one we will refer to as “classic posttribulationism,” the other as “imminent posttribulationism.” While both forms tend to “spiritualize” tribulation prophecies (through the use of subjective and nonliteral interpretation), the popular form‑classic posttribulationism‑spiritualizes the prophecies to a lesser degree than does imminent posttribulationism.
The arguments commonly offered in support of the classic version of posttribulationism are as follows.
1. The early Church did not teach pretribulationism.
2. Although the Church will suffer the wrath of man and Satan during the tribulation, the wrath of God is specifically directed against the unsaved.
3. The fact that Christians will be present in the tribulation proves that the Church is not absent. (Covenantalists view all believers, Old and New Testament, as part of “the Church.”)
4. The Bible does not teach that the return of Christ is imminent.
5. The resurrection occurs in connection with the rapture. Since a resurrection occurs at the end of the tribulation, this proves that the rapture also occurs at the end of the tribulation (cf. Rev. 20:4‑6).
6. The New Testament uses the same words [Gr. parousia = “coming,” apokalupsis = “revelation,” and epiphaneia = “appearing”] to describe both the rapture and the second coming; therefore, they must refer to the same event.
In response to these arguments we should note the following.
1. While early church literature does not teach pretribulationism, neither does it teach posttribulationism, or any other view on the rapture‑though it seems clear that they did hold to the concept of the imminent return of Christ. (Most pretribulationists take this as support for pretribulationism, though as we will see later this is flawed logic.)
2. The idea that divine wrath poured out during the tribulation period is directed only against the unsaved is highly inconsistent with a “normal/face value” interpretation of the events of the period. Most of the tribulation judgments are global and catastrophic. By their very nature they will indiscriminately affect both saved and unsaved. Only a highly spiritualized (subjective) interpretation of tribulation prophecy could sustain the view that the Church might be present on earth and yet be unaffected directly by God’s wrath.
3. The fact that saved people will be present on earth during the tribulation period does not imply the presence of the Church. As we have made the case earlier, not all saints are part of the Church (the Body of Christ). Just as the church age had a definite inception at Pentecost in A.D. 33, so it will have a definite terminus, which will occur at the rapture.
4. It does appear that the biblical writers, as well as the early church, viewed the rapture as an event not to be preceded by signs (they gave none) and that might occur at any moment (they were continually expectant, and encouraged others to be ready also).
5. Arguing that the rapture occurs at the close of the tribulation, because both the rapture and the second coming occur in connection with a resurrection of the dead is highly problematic for posttribulationism. The reason is this: the resurrection, which happens at the end of the tribulation, actually does not occur until sometime after the second coming. (Daniel 12:11-12 indicates that it could occur as much as forty-five days after the end of the tribulation. Revelation 20:4-6 also pictures this resurrection as occurring after the second coming.) The problem for posttribulationism is that this would necessitate that the rapture would have to occur sometime after the second coming. Of course, no posttribulationist really believes that the rapture follows the second coming. This may be due to the fact that they do not take these prophecies literally enough for the inconsistency of their position to come into sharp focus. In any case, this is a serious defect, for it illustrates that the resurrection associated with the second coming cannot be the same as the resurrection associated with the rapture.
There is also a collateral problem, for posttribulationism has to explain where the people come from who enter the millennium in their natural bodies. Generally, the explanation given is that at the moment of the rapture, many of the unsaved instantly realize what has happened, change their minds, and accept Christ, before he fully descends to the earth in judgment. However, if the rapture does not occur until after the second coming, all the saved people going into the kingdom would have already received glorified bodies and there would be absolutely no explanation for the presence of people in their natural bodies propagating children during the millennium. [That there will be children born during the millennium is established inductively from Isaiah 65:17-25, and deductively from the observations that 1) only saved people enter the kingdom (Matt. 7:13-23; 25:31-46); and 2) believers in their glorified state do not marry and propagate (Matt. 22:30); and 3) that there will be a multitude of unsaved people present in the millennial kingdom near the end of the thousand years who could only have entered by birth (Rev. 20:7-9).]
6. The argument that the rapture and the second coming must be the same event, since the same terms are employed, is faulty because none of the three terms cited are “technical” terms for either the rapture or the second coming. The terms parousia (coming), apokalupsis (revelation), and epiphaneia (appearing) are general terms, not special designations only for certain apocalyptic events. Therefore, it should not seem unusual for two discrete events both to employ a common vocabulary. On the other hand, a thorough comparison of the particulars of the rapture and the second coming clearly demonstrates that they are not the same event.
While classic posttribulationists view the tribulation as a clearly recognizable set of events (though somewhat less literally than dispensationalists), imminent posttribulationists hold that the Church could be in the tribulation already (without realizing it) and that the rapture and second coming could occur at any moment; hence, it combines posttribulationism with a belief in the imminency of the rapture. This view offers the option of holding to imminency while still maintaining that the Church is a continuation of, or replacement for Israel (which is the central tenet of covenant theology). The difficulty with this view is that the events of the tribulation must be “spiritualized” to the point of complete non-recognition in order for the view to be workable. In other words, imminent posttribulationists view the events of the tribulation so non-literally that they believe it is possible we could pass through the tribulation and arrive at the second coming without really knowing that we had been through the tribulation at all! Jesus’ teaching on the tribulation plainly stated that it will be possible to discern certain events from within the tribulation period and that certain actions will be in order when those events are manifested (Matt. 24:15-25). How could Jesus make such statements if the features of the period are to be unrecognizable, and what is the justification for interpreting fulfilled prophecy literally but expecting that tribulation prophecy will not be fulfilled in the same way?
Copyright 2005, 2007 by Sam A. Smith / Biblical
Reader Communications
All rights reserved.
Published at: www.biblicalreader.com
See full copyright notice posted at:
http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm
Scripture
taken from the New International Version (NIV)
of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.