Pre-tribulation Rapture ?

 

 

The rapture debate has raised the question of whether the references to a trumpet that sounds after the tribulation (Mt 24:31; Rev 10:7; 11:15) should be identified with, or distinguished from Paul's 'last trump' (1Cor 15:52; 1Thes 4:16)?  Where we locate the day of the Lord will be decisive for this question. Consider the following evidence that the seventh trumpet is indeed the time of the church's rapture.  

 

A comparison of Rev 8:12-13 with Rev 11:13-15 will show that the three woes are also the last three trumpets. The public ascension of the two witnesses takes place at the time of the second woe, which is also the sixth trumpet (Rev 11:12-14). At this point Christ has not yet returned. The announcement of the imminence of the third woe is followed by the sounding of the seventh trumpet, which finishes the mystery of God with Christ's return to raise the dead and judge the nations (Rev 10:7; 11:14-15, 18).

Although the later revelation of the seven trumpets was not yet written at the time of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, it is most unlikely that Paul would have used the term 'last' to speak of a trumpet that is earlier than the well known trumpet that the prophets mention in connection with Israel's deliverance at the day of the Lord (Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1, 15; Zeph 1:14, 16). Clearly, this is the trumpet that Jesus has in mind when speaking of His return after the tribulation to "gather together" His elect (Mt 24:31).

 

[Compare also the Lord's language, 'great sound of a trumpet', with Isaiah's 'the great trumpet shall be blown' (Isa 27:13).]

 

Pre-tribulationists believe that the trumpet mentioned by Jesus is a different trumpet than the one mentioned by Paul, different trumpets for different comings. But a trumpet that sounds seven years earlier than the trumpet associated with Christ's post-tribulational return would hardly be called 'last'.

 

If Paul intended the kind of distinction that pre-tribulationists want us to find between comings and trumpets, it is surprising that he did not more clearly distinguish and qualify his meaning. Consider the following:  Paul was aware that many would know the prophets, if not also the circulating tradition of the Lord's Olivet Discourse (Mt 24-25). Many would certainly have occasion to be aware of a trumpet that sounds at the end of the tribulation.

 

Surely a pre-tribulational Paul would have anticipated the ease with which many would naturally associate his mention of a resurrection trumpet with the trumpet that was expected to sound in climactic conjunction with the deliverance of the last day.  A pre-tribulational Paul becomes even more misleading when he says "then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written ..." (1Cor 15:52). The 'saying' is written in Isa 25:8. Paul declares the time of the 'last trump' to be the time that Isa 25:8 is fulfilled.

This becomes very significant for the rapture debate when we examine the surrounding context in Isaiah chapters 24-27 (known as "Isaiah's little apocalypse"). The entire context is clearly post-tribulational. The resurrection mentioned in Isa 25:8, which includes Isaiah's personal resurrection (Isa 26:19), stands in indivisible connection with the deliverance of Israel at the post-tribulational day of the Lord (Is. 24:21; 25:9; 26:1;  27:12). "That day" is significantly heralded by the blowing of 'the great trumpet' (Isa 27:13).

 

The connection is clear. If "then" means then, then Paul's mention of the last trump in connection with the Isaiah passage is further confirmation that he has in mind the same eschatological trumpet that Jesus associates with His return to 'gather together' His elect (Mt 24:31). It should not pass notice that Paul applies this very language to the rapture of the church in 2Thes 2:1 ("our gathering together unto Him"). Such similarity of terms make it most unlikely that Paul has a different coming in mind, much less that he would expect others to distinguish between comings that are described in such similar language.

 

Whether understood literally or metaphorically, it was well known that the resurrection of the penitent nation awaited the post-tribulational deliverance of God (Isa 25:8;Hos 6:1-2; Eze 37:12-13). This would also be the time of the personal resurrection of such OT worthies as Job (Job 19:25-26), Isaiah (Isa 26:19), and Daniel (Dan 12:1-2). This gave rise to the term, "the resurrection at the 'last day'," as used by Jesus and His Jewish contemporaries (Jn 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).

This is why pre-tribulationists, in order to maintain their view, are forced to conclude that the OT saints continue to "sleep in the dust of the earth" (Dan 12:2) for an additional seven years after the church has been raptured to heaven to participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb.

 

For such a notion to be seriously entertained, a number of presuppositions have to be brought to the text, some of which have no recorded precedent in the history of Christian doctrine. The view that the saints of the tribulation period are not part of the body of Christ was first introduced by John Nelson Darby around 1832.   

 

("Until brought to the fore through the writings and preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through a period of sixteen hundred years". (Harry Ironside, The Mysteries Of God, 1908).

 

Until the advent of modern pre-tribulationism, the day of the Lord was the OT term for the salvation of the 'last day'. The NT would reveal this to be the time of Christ's return to raise the dead, destroy the Antichrist, and judge the nations (Jn 6:39-40, 44, 54;11:24;  12:48; 2Thes 2:3, 8; Rev 11:15, 18). However, the modern adaptation of the term to the concept of an any moment rapture has greatly obscured its original context and use.

Both sides of the debate understand that the rapture question is primarily decided by where we see the day of the Lord on the time-line of last day's events. For reasons we will show, the pre-tribulational view of the rapture cannot be defended unless the day of the Lord is interpreted to include the entire seven years, which pre-tribulationists see as continuous tribulation.

 

[Note: For pre-tribulationists, the day of the Lord is synonymous with the tribulation. They see the entire seven years as tribulation, and often represent the period as a continuous 'day' of wrath. This is incorrect. The first half of the tribulation is false peace, at least for Israel (Isa 28:15, 18, Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 8:25; 11:23-24;1Thes 5:3). The 'great tribulation' is only the last half of the seven year week (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Mt 24:15, 21; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5, 7).]

 

So where does the day of the Lord come in relation to the events of the end? Scripture clearly pin points the time. Very simply and plainly, it comes AFTER the darkness that comes AFTER the tribulation (compare Mt 24:29 with Acts 2:20). If we carefully observe the preposition, AFTER, in Mt 24:29, and the preposition, BEFORE, in Acts 2:20, it becomes clear that the great stellar darkness that comes AFTER the tribulation in Mt 24:29, is shown in Acts 2:20 to come BEFORE the day of the Lord.

 

While the precise term, 'day of the Lord', does not appear in the Lord's Olivet prophecy, the term, 'that day' (Mt 24:36) is certainly used in clear reference to the Lord's return after the tribulation (see Mt 24:27, 29-30, with Mt 24:36-37, 39). It is important to note that it is the coming of 'that day' (i.e., the day "immediately after" the tribulation; Mt 24:29) that Jesus compares to a thief in Mt 24:43.

 

[Note: Among pre-tribulationists there is sharp difference of opinion whether or not the thief-like coming mentioned by Jesus in Mt 24:43 should be interpreted to refer to Christ's post-tribulational return. Prophecy expert, Hal Lindsey, breaks rank with many leading pre-tribulational scholars when he applies the Lord's reference to 'that day and hour' in Mt 24:36, not to the Lord's return after the tribulation in Mt 24:29, but to an earlier coming before the tribulation, one that has received no mention in the narrative until this late point. Other notable defenders of the pre-tribulational view, such as John F. Walvoord, point out that Lindsey's view is seriously inconsistent with the larger context, as any fair examination will confirm (compare Mt 24:27, 29-30, 36, 37, 39,42-43).]

 

So Peter and Paul's common use of the phrase, 'thief in the night', clearly has in view the Lord's thief-like return that is specifically at the end of the tribulation. A day of the Lord that comes after the tribulation certainly makes better sense of why Paul can say that "that day" cannot come until after the Antichrist has come first (2Thes  2:3).   

 

[Of course we know that 'that day' does not come on believers as a thief, but only the unwary "children of darkness" (compare Dan 12:10; Lk 21:34; 1Thes 5:4;Rev 3:10; 16:15). The reason is clear. Believers will recognize the well defined events that signal the end (Mt 24:15; Dan 11:23-31). Paul fully expects the Thessalonians to be able to recognize the Antichrist in association with his abominable act in the temple of God at Jerusalem (2Thes 2:3-6).]

 

Whereas Jesus uses the language of Joel 2:31 to describe the phenomena that attends His return after the tribulation (Mt 24:29), Peter cites the same passage in Joel to describe the phenomena that precedes the day of the Lord (Acts 2:20). Certainly for Peter, 'that great and notable day of the Lord' intends the post-tribulational return of Jesus. That is why Peter can identify the thief-like day of the Lord with the "day of God" (2Pet 3:10, 12), which Rev 16:14-15 will show comes at the very end of the tribulation, also like a thief, as it is manifestly the same day.

 

If we grant that the day of the Lord and the day of God are the same day, then it becomes clear that Rev 16:14-17 locates the day of the Lord / day of God at the seventh bowl. A comparison of Rev 16:17 with Eze 39:8 leaves no question that the great day of God is the OT day of the Lord that brings the renewal of Israel (Eze 39:22-29).  Now if we come to the book of Revelation with the knowledge that the day of the Lord is also called the day of God (Peter makes this clear in 2Pet 3:10, 12), we are helped to see that both the seventh trumpet and the seventh bowl arrive at the same point, namely, "that great day of God Almighty" (Rev 11:15, 18; 16:12-14).

 

We understand this, because the sixth bowl is only final preparation for "that great day of God Almighty" (Rev 16:12-14). At this point, Christ has not returned. It is important to note that the announcement of the imminence of the day of God also announces the imminence of Christ's thief-like return (Rev 16:14-15). The day arrives with the pouring out of the seventh bowl. This is conclusive evidence that Christ's return at the seventh trumpet is the catalyst for the final outpouring of wrath at the seventh bowl.  This is not splitting hairs, because, as we shall see, the question of where we locate the day of the Lord is decisive for the rapture question. To locate the day of the Lord at the end of the tribulation is fatal to a pre-tribulation view of the rapture. Here's why.

 

In 1937 Alexander Reese published, "The Approaching Advent of Christ." Before this, earlier pretribulationists put the day of the Lord at the end of the tribulation. They also put the resurrection of the OT righteous at the time of the pretribulation rapture until Reese pointed out that the Old Testament righteous do not rise until the end of the tribulation at the last day (Job 19:25-26; Isa 26:19, 20; Dan 12:1-2; Jn 6:39-40, 44,54; 11:24; 12:48).  It is a little known fact that in reaction to the inconsistencies pointed out by Reese's book, pre-tribulationists began to teach that the OT righteous would not be raised with the church at the rapture (as formerly believed), but would continue to 'sleep in the dust of the earth' until the 'last day' at the end of the tribulation (Dan 12:1-2).

 

At the same time, Reese pointed out that Paul had instructed the church to be on guard for the day of the Lord (1Thes 5:2, 6-8), as also Peter exhorts believers to be always "looking for and hasting to the coming of the day of the God" (2Pet 3:12 ASV). This would hardly make sense if the church has been removed from the earth seven years before a post-tribulational day of the Lord. The force of Reese's argument induced some of the earlier pre-tribulationists to rethink their placement of the day of the Lord.  After the publication of Reese's book, pre-tribulationists moved the day of the Lord forward to the beginning of the seven years. The day of the Lord would now be seen as starting with the imminent, unsignaled, pretribulation rapture. In this way, both the rapture and the day of the Lord could be seen as coming suddenly, unexpectedly, and without preceding signs, "like a thief in the night" (1Thes 5:2; 2Pet 3:10). It seemed the perfect solution.

 

In 1973 Robert Gundry wrote, "The Church and the Great Tribulation. In the years following Reese's landmark rebuttal, pre-tribulationists taught that the day of the Lord should be understood to begin with the any moment rapture. This would soon change, at least in academic circles.  Gundry pointed out the simple fact that regardless of where the day of the Lord is thought to begin, if we say it starts with the rapture, then the rapture cannot be maintained as an imminent event, simply because Paul says that 'that day' shall not come until the man of sin has first been revealed (2Thes 2:2-3).  This is decisive, because regardless of where one begins "that day", it cannot be disassociated from Christ's return to 'gather together' the church (2Thes 2:1-3). Gundry's logic sent waves throughout the pre-tribulational camp, but another strategic adjustment was soon to follow.

 

I have scholarly articles published in journals where pre-tribulationists admit the problem posed by Gundry. The answer for the difficulty was to propose an additional gap between the rapture and the day of the Lord in order to provide time for the Antichrist to be revealed 'after' the rapture, but 'before' the start of the day of the Lord.  The acknowledgment that the day of the Lord is signaled by the advance revelation of the Antichrist puts to rest the false theory that the use of the term, 'thief', requires the concept of imminence (an event that may occur any moment without warning). No, it is clear that the Lord and the apostles apply this term (i.e., 'day of the Lord') to an event that is by no means imminent, as now admitted, even by pretribulationists.

 

Both Paul and Peter speak of the coming of the day of the Lord "as a thief in the night". This language originated with Jesus in obvious reference to His post-tribulational coming. If the rapture at Christ's return is seen as belonging to the day of the Lord, then it is correct to speak of the rapture as coming as a thief in the night.  However, it is incorrect and even reprehensible for pre-tribulationists to continue to speak of the rapture as coming as 'a thief in the night', now that both sides agree that the day of the Lord is not an imminent event, but is preceded first by the Antichrist, and since pre-tribulationists now admit that the day of the Lord does not start with an any moment rapture. Though not attributed to anyone's personal intention, such misappropriation of terms creates a misleading illusion.

 

It is a little known, but a well documented fact that pre-tribulationism was moved to change their position on the day of the Lord, first with Reese's publication in 1937, and again with Gundry's in 1973. This is not the place, but a review of that history and the literature of that debate reads as a standing embarrassment to a position that has been teetering on the verge of collapse in academic circles, but the view continues to prevail unabated at the popular level.  It is a story that demonstrates the lengths that some are prepared to go in order to defend the indefensible. Of course, we believe that such a solution (i.e., a gap of some indefinite amount of time between the rapture and the day of the Lord) would have never been invented if it were not for the crisis created by the questions raised by these and other scholars.

 

In the churches, many lay persons raised the same questions only to be side-lined or worse.  Sadly, much of this debate is only known in academic circles, so many never hear of the revisions. In scholarly exchange, much has been done to slow the train of pre-tribulationism, but for every advance at the academic level, the theory is continually revitalized at the popular level thanks to some of the popular books and movies with this error as a central theme and the lack of scholarly study on the pastoral level. 

 

Reggie Kelly  

 

Reggie's web site:   The Mystery of Israel     

 

SIGN UP FOR REGGIES EMAILS OR CONTACT HIM DIRECTLY 

 

Archives of Clint's Teachings

Word of Grace     

 

Naioth School of the Prophets 

 

Donate