I submitted this paper for Eschatology (TH 759) at Bob Jones University on April 15, 2005.
The supreme future event for the church is Christ’s second coming. It is the believer’s hope (Tit 2:13; cf. 1 Thes 1:3). While God intended this anticipated event to be a source of blessing and comfort, uniting all true believers as they eagerly await the fullness of their future salvation, it has often become a point of intense debate and carnal controversy. Certainly, the fact and nature of Christ’s return are clear and unambiguous, but the timing—by divine intent—is not (Mat 24:36). Believers must be careful not to overemphasize what God has not clearly revealed. John Calvin aptly says,
We must return to the word of God, in which we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know. . . . Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation—viz. that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry.
The Great Tribulation
The rapture of the church is normally discussed in terms of its relationship to the tribulation. The main positions are (1) pretribulationism, the belief that Christ will rapture His church before the tribulation; (2) midtribulationism, the belief that Christ will rapture His church at the midpoint of the tribulation; and (3) posttribulationism, the belief that Christ will rapture his church after the tribulation as part of the single second coming.
This is an intramural debate among premillennialists, most of whom hold in common a futurist interpretation of the tribulation. The key texts cited in support of this future, seven-year period of unparalleled judgment are (1) Dan 9:24–27, (2) Mt 24 (cf. Mk 13; Lk 21:5–36), and (3) Rev 6–19. It is not entirely clear that these passages should be interpreted as predicting a future tribulation period. Much of what they address seems to have had its fulfillment in events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70. Yet it is also difficult to limit these passages entirely to ad 70. It seems that both the futurist and the preterist are partially right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. For the purpose of this paper and in order to interact with the arguments I will presuppose the reality of the future period of unprecedented trouble commonly called the tribulation.
Analysis of the Primary Arguments for a Two-stage Coming
Numerous arguments are set forth by the pretribulationist purporting that Christ must come twice: first, to secretly rapture the church before the tribulation, and then, a second time, to come to earth and establish His millennial kingdom. Not all adherents of pretribulationism find each of these arguments convincing or particularly helpful. We will consider the most common ones.
An Ecclesiological Argument: Israel and the Church Are Distinct
Many dispensationalists insist that a proper understanding of the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church necessitates a pretribulational rapture of the church. The presupposition that God has two completely distinct programs for two completely distinct groups of people has led Benware to conclude that it would be “highly unlikely that they will be dealt with simultaneously.” Dispensationalists think it logically improbable or even impossible that God would deal with Israel and the church in the same period of time.
This argument carries little weight. First, the presuppositions upon which it is based are highly questionable. The emphasis in NT theology is that God has brought the Jew and Gentile together into one new man (Eph 2:11–22). There is no indication that this joining together of all races into the one people of God is set aside for a reversion back to the former conditions. In fact, Rom 11:23–24 argues strongly against such a division. Any Jews who are saved after the resurrection will themselves be a part of the church. If there will be no church in the tribulation there will be no saved people. The essential unity of God’s covenant people calls into question the extreme dichotomy of dispensational theology. Yet, even granting the validity of the presupposition, the conclusion is nothing more than an assumption. Moo is correct when he concludes that “a total and consistent separation of Israel and the church does not necessarily entail any specific view of the time of the Rapture.” If Israel and the church can inhabit the new earth together for all eternity, one wonders why they could not also coexist on the same planet prior to that.
An Argument from Silence: No Mention of the Church
The pretribulationists love to point out that the church is not mentioned explicitly as being on the earth during the tribulation. Benware states it this way:
The word for “church” (ekklēsia) is not used, and specific terms used of the church, such as “body of Christ” are not found in these passages. . . . It is possible that the reason for no mention of the church is that it is not there! It is not only possible, but it is likely that this is the case.
First, the references to the church as the body of Christ are very few (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22–23; 4:12; 5:30; Col 1:18, 24), and John never uses the image. It is not surprising that it is absent. Second, the book of Revelation is silent about other people and things in the tribulation. For example, there is no explicit mention of antichrist, a term which is exclusively Johannine! Yet no pretribulationist is going to question his presence in the tribulation. In addition, the word Jew is absent after chapter three as well, and there is only one (debated) reference to Israel between chapters 4 and 19. Should we then conclude that the Jews are absent as well? Third, we also lack any clear indication that the church is in heaven during this time. There are saved people on earth and in heaven, but neither group is explicitly identified as the church. Fourth, explicit references to the church are absent all over the NT where it is clear that the church is in view. Finally, no good reason exists for not identifying the believers mentioned throughout the book as part of the church.
A Soteriological Argument: Exemption from Divine Wrath
Pretribulationists argue that the church cannot be on the earth during the tribulation because of the promises made to the church concerning exemption from divine wrath (e.g., 1 Thes 1:9–10; 5:9). This argument is based on the assumption that God will pour out His wrath on the whole earth during the entire tribulation period. If the earth is experiencing God’s wrath and the church has been promised exemption from it, it is inconceivable that the church would not have been raptured prior to this time of wrath. This conclusion requires three assumptions. First, being on the earth during this time equates being the object of God’s wrath. Second, removal from the planet is the only way for God to fulfill His promise. Third, this promise belongs only to people who become believers prior to the beginning of the tribulation period. All three of these assumptions are unlikely.
We note, first of all, that all positions are in agreement that the church will not experience the wrath of God. This is not a point of debate. Neither is the point of debate when exactly God pours His wrath out on the earth. The main issues are (1) the means by which God fulfills these promises and (2) the people to whom the promises belong. Concerning the first point the pretribulationists argue that the only feasible means of protection is removal. But the Scriptures do not support the notion that everyone on the planet during the tribulation must be the objects of God’s wrath. What the Scripture is clear about is that believers will be present during the tribulation. If it is possible for them to be on the earth without experiencing God’s wrath, certainly it would be possible for the church to be as well. Most pretribulationists do not wrestle adequately with this objection. Presumably, in their view, all believers, the 144,000, and even the two witnesses would have to experience God’s wrath, since they will all be present on the earth during the tribulation. To argue that God has appointed these individuals to be the objects of His divine wrath and fury is unthinkable. It seems feasible then that God could preserve His church during this time in the same way that He will preserve tribulation believers.
Feinberg has wrestled with the inconsistencies of the pretribulationist position on this point. His response is to deny that these promises belong to believers outside of the church. In other words, God has only promised exemption from divine wrath to believers converted up through the final days of the church age, not to those who become believers once the tribulation has started. Feinberg’s answer to the pretribulationist’s problem is far from satisfactory. The promises are rooted in Christ’s redemptive work. In 1 Thes 5:9–10 Paul connects the believer’s exemption from wrath to the fact that Christ “died for us.” The death of Christ was just as much for tribulation believers as for pretribulation believers.
In conclusion, if God can pour out His wrath on unbelievers during the tribulation without making His people objects of His wrath, the pretribulationist argument fails. Attempting to limit it to only church-age believers will not do. Pretribulationists would do well to abandon this argument.
A Grammatical Argument: Revelation 3:10
In Rev 3:10 God promised to keep the Philadelphian believers, i.e., those who kept His command to endure, from the hour of trial. This text has become a crucial one in the rapture debates. Too quickly proponents from both sides skip over the historical context and the original audience of these words. This was God’s word of comfort to a first-century church going through persecution. Any reasonable hermeneutic requires that this promise was something that God actually fulfilled in the first century to the Philadelphian church. Consequently, the hour of trial must have referred to a first century event. Whatever it meant for God to keep the Philadelphian believers from the hour of testing, it likely would mean the same thing for any future application it might have to the church at large.
There are numerous debates about the meaning of τηρήσω ἐκ. One’s interpretation of this phrase will largely be influenced by theology rather than clear grammatical necessity. The more significant pretribulationist argument deals with the fact that God promises exemption from a time period (“the hour of trial”). The only way to be exempt from this time period is by being in heaven. Moo questions whether the time period itself is the point, arguing that the emphasis is “not on the time period as such, but on the aspect or essential characteristic of the situation.”
Regardless of how one understands the exact import of τηρήσω ἐκ, the pretribulationist view has a significant weakness. It seems that the pretribulationist position would also necessitate hundreds of thousands of individual raptures during the tribulation as well. If the promise entails God’s protection of believers by removal from the earth, it would seem necessary to conclude that this passage does not teach just a single rapture but as many raptures as there are people who are saved throughout the tribulation. In conclusion, it is unlikely that this promise necessitates removal since there will certainly be people on earth during the tribulation who have kept Jesus’ command to endure and to whom God will fulfill this promise without removal. There is no reason that He could not do the same for the church.
A Logical Argument: The Need for Non-glorified People
A favorite argument of many premillennialists is that non-glorified people are necessary to populate the millennium, so there must be two comings of Christ. In other words, if Christ comes only once, and if all unbelievers are killed or consigned to eternal punishment and all believers are glorified, then there would be no one capable of procreation and consequently no birth, sin, or death. All premillennialists are in agreement on the need for non-glorified people on the basis of Is 65:20. The pretribulational resolution is that tribulation saints who are not martyred will enter into the millennium without receiving their resurrection bodies.
However, two of the above assumptions are questionable: that all unbelievers will be killed and that all believers will be glorified. Those who affirm a single coming of Christ have offered a number of solutions to the problem. Grudem has suggested that not all unbelievers will die in the battle described in Rev 19. This is possible, but it seems difficult to fit with the precise language of the text. The best solution seems to be that people are converted at the time of or shortly after Christ’s second coming, but that they do not take part in the transformation because they are unbelievers at the time when Christ comes and believers are instantly changed.
Conclusion
The burden of proof lies with the pretribulationist to make a compelling case for a two-stage coming. Having considered their primary arguments, I find that case inadequate to overturn the natural reading of the New Testament’s teaching about Christ’s future coming. It is best, then, to affirm a single second coming. Moo is correct when he argues, “A two-stage coming cannot be ruled out a priori, but on the other hand it cannot be accepted unless there is clear evidence for such a division.” A normal reading of the New Testament supports the view that there is only one second coming, and since there are no clear indicators pointing in the direction of two separate comings, it is safe two assume that there are not.
Christ is coming again. This is the blessed hope of all believers. Regardless of one’s view of the precise details of eschatological chronology, it is essential that believers rejoice in their unity in Christ and live in light of the essentials of what God has revealed about our future blessed hope.
Bibliography
Barney, Christopher D. “Ecclesiology and Theological System: A Survey and Analysis of Covenant and Dispensational Theology upon the Interpretation of Key Ecclesiological Passages.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Bob Jones University, May 2004.
Bavinck, Herman. The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, translated by John Vriend, edited by John Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Feinberg, John S. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.
Gundry, Stanely N., ed. Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Hand, Brian. “A Christology of the Book of Revelation Based on Elements of Its Literary Composition.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Bob Jones University, June 2003.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Ice, Thomas and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
Kimbro, Reginald C. The Gospel According to Dispensationalism: A Doctrinal Survey of the System that Permeated Fundamentalism. Toronto: Wittenburg Publications, 1995.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. 1956; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. The Church and the Last Things. Wheaton: Crossway, 1998.
MacArthur, John F. The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999.
Mathison, Keith A. Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1999.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.
Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
Sproul, R. C. The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1993.
Walvoord, John F. The Return of the Lord. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Willis, Wesley R. and John R. Master, ed. Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 1994.