The Rapture Question

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

The first edition of this book was published more than twenty years ago and has enjoyed twenty printings and continued interest. With the passing years, however, many new books bearing on the doctrine of the Rapture have been published.

While remarkably few statements in the first edition need correction or revision, some new approaches to the doctrine have been introduced. In general, discussion of the rapture of the church continues to be limited to those holding the premillennial interpretation, with liberal interpreters and amillenarians largely ignoring the subject.

Within premillenialism a definite trend can be seen toward a more literal interpretation of prophecies concerning the Great Tribulation. This has tended to sharpen the distinction between those holding that the rapture of the church occurs before the Tribulation and those who hold that it follows the Tribulation.

In the last twenty years, Israel has continued to occupy the center of the stage in the Middle East, and the importance of contemporary events relating to fulfillment of the prophecy has become increasingly more apparent. If the current events indicate that the end of the age is approaching, the question as to whether the church is to be raptured before end-time events are fulfilled becomes more important than ever.

The difference in point of view between pretribulationism and posttribulationism in the light of current events is not simply a debate among scholars, but it is a matter of great practical importance, affecting as it does, the nature of our hope in relation to the coming of Christ.

Under these circumstances, the arguments supporting the various views call for restudy and restatement. It is hoped that the revised edition will answer the natural questions that arise in determining scriptural truth on this doctrine and will serve to enhance the blessed hope of Christ’s return.

In issuing this revised edition, quotations from the Bible have been taken from the New International Version, unless otherwise indicated. Recent publications have been taken into consideration and a bibliography of pertinent literature has been supplied, along with a revised index to the Scriptures. To facilitate ready reference, a subject index, including reference to authors, has also been included. Grateful acknowledgment is made to those who have granted permission to use copyrighted material.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION

The blessed hope of Christ’s coming for His own has been the expectation of the church since the time of the apostles. In the early centuries there was no attempt to achieve the full theological discussion of prophecy that has characterized recent biblical studies. It is clear, however, that from the beginning the church believed that the coming of the Lord was imminent. Through the centuries since the apostles, this truth has continued to be the star of hope to saints weary of this world, and it abides as the hope of the church in the twentieth century.

In this generation, there has been much discussion on the relation of the coming of Christ to the predicted time of tribulation that will overtake the world. While larger issues such as premillennialism versus amillennialism continue to occupy the attention of conservative scholars, the question of the precise character of the hope of Christ’s return has persisted. Many devout scholars have contributed their views on this subject, and the results have not always agreed. The present volume is offered in the hope that the restatement of the reasons for the hope of the imminent return of Christ may prove a blessing to the reader. The details of opposing viewpoints have also been presented in order to acquaint students of the Word with the major issues of biblical interpretation that are involved. This study is offered in the spirit of strengthening the hope of those who love His appearing.

Grateful acknowledgment is made to Dallas Theological Seminary for permission to use portions of published articles in Bibliotheca Sacra in the writing of this volume. While it has not been necessary to rewrite the material completely, extensive revision, addition, and clarification have been achieved, including reference to recent works. Unless otherwise stated, the American Standard Version of 1901, published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, is used in quotation from the Scriptures. Acknowledgment is made to them and to all who have granted permission to use quoted material. (The New International Version has been used in the second edition.)

1

THE PROMISE OF HIS COMING

Revival of Interest in Prophecy

More questions are being asked today than ever before concerning the return of the Lord. The Second Coming has always been prominent in fundamentalist literature, but the surprising revival of interest on the part of the modern liberal and the neoorthodox writers is something new. For instance, even before the first edition of this book, Emil Brunner contributed his book Eternal Hope. H. H. Rowley wrote The Relevance of the Apocalyptic. John Wick Bowman ventured a new translation of the Book of Revelation entitled The Drama of the Book of Revelation. Even more specifically, Paul S. Minear published his book Christian Hope and the Second Coming. These works were not isolated illustrations but signs of a major trend of increasing attention to the scriptural doctrine of the second coming of Christ.

It is not safe to conclude, however, that this resurgence of interest is necessarily a new and vital interpretation of scriptural teaching. The inspired prophecy of Peter, which states that skeptics would ask the question Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? (2 Peter 3:4), is still being fulfilled. While increasing realism is being manifested in the discussion of the Second Advent, the tendency of liberalism to explain away and spiritualize a literal Second Coming is still all too evident. For constructive scriptural exegesis of unfulfilled prophecy, the student of Scripture is forced to rely on those who accept the inspiration of the Scriptures and who use the principle of its literal interpretation as the norm. Liberal and neoorthodox theologians, for instance, contribute nothing to the rapture question.

Importance of the Rapture Question

The rapture question, while neglected by modern liberals, is one of the main areas in dispute in conservative eschatology. The Scriptures predict that the church will be raptured, or caught up to heaven, at the coming of the Lord for them. The word rapture is from rapere, found in the expression caught up in the Latin translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. If this is a literal, future event, it is a most important aspect of the hope of the church. The doctrine is a part of the larger truth of a literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It involves the accuracy and authority of Scripture. Modern liberals, who deny the Scriptures, by their premises are insulated from any real understanding of the doctrinal problems that relate to the Rapture. It is as impossible to discuss the questions pertinent to the time of the Rapture without assuming the authority of Scripture as it is to solve a problem in mathematics without accepting normal meaning for numbers. With these proper assumptions, however, the scriptural revelation casts a broad shaft of light on the entire problem of the Rapture, not only inviting study of the subject itself, but illuminating and enriching many kindred truths.

Late in His earthly ministry, our Lord Jesus Christ dealt with the searching question of His disciples: When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? (Matt. 24:3). In answering this question our Lord predicted certain major events which would be signs of the Second Advent. The period in general is described in verse 21 as a time of great tribulation (AV.RSV), or great distress (NIV, NEB). In His prophecy He exhorted those living in Palestine at that time to flee to the mountains (Matt. 24:16). The exigencies of that day are graphically described in His exhortation, Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened (Matt. 24:17-22).

To earnest believers in the Scriptures who are looking for the second advent of Christ, these prophetic words raise important questions. Does this awful period of trial predicted by our Lord lie between us and the end of the present age? In other words, must the church go through the Great Tribulation?

The question of whether the church must continue on earth through the predicted time of trouble is obviously a major problem of Christian faith. While there has been increasing interest in prophetic themes among the liberals and the neoorthodox, some conservatives have manifested a disposition to consider the study of prophecy as unimportant. In our day, when the authority of the Bible is disputed and when many have denied the infallibility of Scripture, some feel that there is little profit in debating eschatology. In other words, why improve the building if the foundation is not sure?

If this contention is proper, an inquiry into the present problem of whether the church will go through the Tribulation is, of course, futile. There are many, however, who are not willing to scuttle all investigation and study of scriptural prophecy in an effort to refute attacks on the Word of God on a more general front. The question of whether the church will go through the Tribulation is not as trivial and academic a question as some would make it. It is rather an issue with great practical and doctrinal implications. While it is not as far-reaching in biblical interpretation as the doctrines of the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the premillennial interpretation as a whole, one’s decision concerning the character of the Tribulation is an essential factor in any detailed program of the future. It is significant not only in its own content but in its application of principles of interpretation far beyond the doctrine itself.

Relation to the Doctrine of the Tribulation

The interpretation of the Scripture relative to the coming Tribulation is important first of all as a strategic exegetical problem. The revelation concerning the Tribulation is found in many passages in the Old and New Testaments and includes a major part of the Book of Revelation. Until the nature of the Tribulation is established, these portions are left without intelligent exegesis. This spreads confusion in the whole prophetic program of the future. It is not difficult to establish that the question of whether the church goes through the Tribulation is a major factor in the interpretation of the Tribulation itself.

The study of the Tribulation also is a major theological problem. The interpretation given to the Tribulation is integral to particular theological points of view, especially in the area of eschatology. First, a question such as the use of the literal method of interpretation as contrasted to the nonliteral, spiritualizing method is most important. Second, another major factor is the separation of divine programs for Israel and the church. Third, the larger issue of amillennialism versus premillennialism, which is also involved, makes the doctrine of the Tribulation significant beyond its own borders. The proper use of the inductive method of logic also becomes very important because some posttribulationists tend to select from scriptural passages only those facts that support their case and ignore other data, with the result that their inductions are imperfect. Logic also plays a part in the proper application of theological conclusions in general. To some extent the interpretation of the Tribulation is predetermined by theological conclusions in other aspects of eschatology.

The nature of the Tribulation is also one of practical importance. If the church is destined to endure the persecutions of the Tribulation, it is futile to proclaim the coming of the Lord as an imminent hope. Instead, it should be recognized that Christ cannot come until these predicted sorrows have been accomplished. On the other hand, if Christ will come for His church before the predicted time of trouble, Christians can regard His coming as an imminent daily expectation. From a practical standpoint, the doctrine has tremendous implications.

Much of the difficulty in arriving at a solution of the rapture question has been occasioned by failure to define carefully the term tribulation. Until the nature of the Tribulation is established, it is impossible to discuss intelligently the question of whether the church will endure it. A wide variety of views on the Tribulation exists, and each form of millennial teaching can be broadly characterized by its own position on the Tribulation.

Postmillennial attitude toward the Tribulation

As illustrated in the writings of Charles Hodge, the postmillennial point of view considers the Tribulation a final state of trouble just preceding the grand climax of the triumph of the gospel. The national conversion of Israel and the general conversion of Gentiles is viewed as containing in its last stages a final conflict with Antichrist, which is equated with Romanism.¹

It is a characteristic of postmillennialism that it does not attempt a literal interpretation of the Tribulation. Some less conservative than Hodge, such as Snowden, regard the Tribulation as any time of trouble, now largely past or associated with the apostolic period. Hodge himself did not offer any specific system of interpretation, as illustrated in his comment on the Book of Revelation: Some regard it as a description in oriental imagery of contemporaneous events; others as intended to set forth the different phases of the spiritual life of the Church; others as designed to unfold the leading events in the history of the Church and of the world in their chronological order; others again assume that it is a series, figuratively speaking, of circles; each vision or series of visions relating to the same events under different aspects; the end, and the preparation for the end, being presented over and over again; the great theme being the coming of the Lord, and the triumph of his Church.²

While vague as to specific teaching, the postmillennial interpretation of the Tribulation is clear in its general characteristics. The Tribulation, however, according to postmillennialism, is not very definite and its character is not sufficiently serious to interfere with the onward march of the church to a great climax of triumph at the second advent of Christ. The Tribulation is a minor phase of the closing events of the age.

Amillennial attitude toward the Tribulation

The amillennial interpretation of the Tribulation does not differ essentially from the postmillennial, although it has a different theological context. In Augustinian amillennialism, the present age is regarded as the predicted Millennium; and inasmuch as the Tribulation is said to precede the Millennium by so much, it must already be past. Often it is identified with the troubles of Israel in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The fact that the Book of Revelation was written after this event, however, and that a time of trouble is predicted to precede the Second Advent has led some, like Berkhof, to hold to a future Tribulation, placing the fulfillment of Scripture dealing with the Tribulation, including the battle of Gog and Magog, after the Millennium. Berkhof has written: The words of Jesus [Olivet Discourse] undoubtedly found a partial fulfillment in the days preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, but will evidently have a further fulfillment in the future in a tribulation far surpassing anything that has ever been experienced, Matt. 24:21; Mark 13:19.³

The amillennial view, therefore, holds to a future tribulation period, but there is little uniformity concerning its exact character. The tendency in amillennialism is to avoid specific details in describing the Tribulation. In effect, while admitting the fact of the coming Tribulation, amillenarians spiritualize the sequence of events that are prophesied. This is particularly true in the interpretation of the tribulation section of the Book of Revelation.

Premillennial attitude toward the Tribulation

In general, premillenarians interpret the coming Tribulation with more literalness than either the amillenarians or the postmillenarians. Within the ranks of premillenarians, some hold the view that the coming of Christ for His church will be posttribulational, that is, that the church will remain on earth throughout the tribulation period.

Although premillenarians who are posttribulational unite in the concept that the Rapture is at the end of the Tribulation, they vary greatly in their explanation of the exegetical and theological problems that this view raises, as will appear in later discussion. Some, like J. Barton Payne, spiritualize the Tribulation completely and view it as contemporary or past.⁴ This is similar to the view of some of the earlier church fathers who are premillennial and accordingly is called the classic view.

Others, like Alexander Reese, follow a semiclassic position, spiritualizing the Tribulation somewhat, but regarding it as a future period of trouble that must intervene before the Second Coming.⁵ This view, of course, in contrast to that of Payne’s, to some extent denies the imminency of Christ’s return.

Emerging more recently among premillenarians who are posttribulational is the view of George Ladd, who holds that Revelation 8-16, including the appearance of the Beast whom we call the Antichrist, the sounding of the seven trumpets and the outpouring of the seven vials which constitute the Great Tribulation from the point of view of the divine judgment on the world are still future and that the Second Coming and the Rapture cannot occur for at least another seven-year period.⁶ This point of view has attracted a number of followers.

The most recent innovation among premillenarians who are posttribulational is the view of Robert Gundry, who has attempted to merge dispensational interpretation and posttribulationism.⁷

These four differing views of posttribulationism have been analyzed in this author’s work The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, published in 1976. Unquestionably the major issue on the doctrine of the Rapture is the differing points of view of those who are pretribulational and those who are posttribulational. Other points of view, however, have also been prominent in the twentieth century.

In recent years there has arisen a modification of posttribulationism, known as the midtribulational view, which holds that the church will be translated at the coming of the Lord for His church just before the Great Tribulation prophesied by our Lord, but in the middle of the seven-year period predicted by Daniel as preceding the coming of Christ (Dan. 9:27). This view is rather new and as yet has a limited literature.

The third view, which is popular with premillenarians who have specialized in prophetic study, is a pretribulational position, which holds that Christ will come for His church before the entire seven-year period predicted by Daniel. The church in this point of view does not enter at all into the final tribulation period. This teaching was espoused by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren and popularized by the famous Scofield Reference Bible. Generally speaking, the pretribulational view is followed by those who consider premillenarianism a system of Bible interpretation, while the posttribulational and midtribulational positions characterize those who limit the area of premillennialism to eschatology.

An offshoot of pretribulationism, though seldom recognized as an orthodox point of view, is the partial rapture concept that only the godly Christians expecting the return of Christ will be translated before the Tribulation. The rest will continue through it until the return of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom. It is obvious that only one of these four possible positions is correct, and it is the duty of the student of Scripture to determine which is the proper interpretation of related Scriptures.

Doctrine of the Church in Relation to the Rapture Question

In determining the question of whether the church will go through the Tribulation, a most important factor is the definition of the term church. It is characteristic of posttribulationism to assume, usually without any proof whatever, that the word church is an all-inclusive term that is synonymous with the terms elect and saints. In brief, they hold that saints of all past, present, and future ages are included in the church. This definition makes impossible any other view than the posttribulational concept. All parties agree that there are saints in the Tribulation and that even during this time of unprecedented trouble many will turn to Christ for salvation. If these believers in the Tribulation are properly described as members of the church, it leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church will go through the Tribulation.

An exception to the normal definition of the church by posttribulationism is given by Robert H. Gundry, who attempts to maintain a distinction between Israel and the church while at the same time holding to posttribulationism. In taking this position, he is opposed by practically all other posttribulationists, and his definition of the church leads to many novel interpretations of Scripture. A proper distinction between the church and Israel naturally leads to pretribulationism, as practically all posttribulationists admit. Gundry’s unusual position will be considered in the treatment of contemporary posttribulationism.

Apart from Gundry, practically all posttribulationists build on the concept that the church includes the saints of all ages. Even a thorough work in advocating posttribulationism such as Alexander Reese’s The Approaching Advent of Christ assumes the concept of the term church as all-inclusive with practically no proof or discussion. George E. Ladd’s The Blessed Hope is no better. In Ladd’s recent work, The Last Things, he clearly identified Israel and the church and interpreted Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled in connection with the first coming of Christ.⁸

Any answer to the rapture question must therefore be based on a careful study of the doctrine of the church as it is revealed in the New Testament. To a large extent premillennialism, as well as pretribulationism, is dependent on the definition of the church, and premillenarians who fail to distinguish between Israel and the church erect their structure of premillennial doctrine on a weak foundation. Before the detailed arguments for and against pretribulationism can be considered, therefore, it is necessary first of all to establish a biblical definition of the Tribulation and the church.

2

THE MEANING OF THE CHURCH

Relation to the Rapture Question

The doctrine of the church has been rightly considered by theologians of all points of view as being an integral and important aspect of theology as a whole. Systems of theology can often be characterized by their ecclesiology. The premillennial system of interpretation has especially relied on a proper understanding of the doctrine of the church as a body distinct from Israel and from saints in general. What is essential to premillennialism becomes an indispensable foundation in the study of pretribulationism. It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church, and any consideration of pretribulationism that does not take this major factor into consideration will be largely beside the point.

If the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation, as all agree that there will be saints in this time of trouble. If, however, the term church applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation, then the possibility of the translation of the church before the Tribulation is possible and even probable. Decision, therefore, as to the exact nature of the church is prerequisite to the discussion that follows. The precise usage of ecclesia, usually translated church or assembly, must be determined by study of New Testament passages as well as its use in the Septuagint or the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Meaning of Ecclesia

In the New Testament, the Greek word ecclesia has at least four important meanings. It is used (1) to mean an assembly of people. In this sense it has no special theological meaning. It can refer to Israel as a gathered people in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) or a regular assembly of citizens (Acts 19:39) or a group of people gathered for religious worship (Heb. 2:12). (2) The same word is used for an assembly of Christians in a local church (Acts 8:1,3; 11:22,26) and in the plural for a group of such churches (1 Cor. 16:19; Gal 1:2). Each assembly or church has a local gathering composed of professed Christians. That all in the assembly are not necessarily true believers is clear from messages to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2-3).

(3) Ecclesia is also used of the total of professing Christians without reference to locality and is practically parallel in this sense to Christendom (Acts 12:1; Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Rev. 2:1-3:22; etc.).

The same word is used (4) of the body of Christ, composed of those baptized by the Holy Spirit into the church (1 Cor. 12:13). Ecclesia used in this connection becomes a technical word referring to the saints of this age.

All agree that ecclesia in its first meaning indicated above is used of Israel in the Old Testament. The issue is whether ecclesia is ever used of Israel in the sense of the second, third, and fourth meanings. A study of every use of ecclesia in the New