Author: Chris

With the US-Iran conflict of 2026 dominating the headlines, many Christians are asking the same question: are we finally in the end times?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

My new book is out: The Deformation- Examining Reformation Theology Through The Lens of the Early Church https://a.co/d/07YsoFRY

Chris White begins an 11-week study on the timing of the events during the 70^th week. This episode is all about world government and how it is possible that Christians can be deceived by it.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

The last Pretrib Problem that we will cover in this film concerns patristics which is a name for the study of the writings and beliefs of the early church.

The writings from the early church fathers date back to the first century, and of course, we should never take their writings as proof of one doctrine over another. The Bible is always the ultimate source for our doctrine.

But at the same time most, if not all of the doctrines we hold today, were taught at some point by the early church fathers.

At the very least these writings provide insight into what the earliest Christians believed about certain subjects whether those beliefs were right or wrong.

So, the big question is what did the early church believe about the timing of the rapture? And in one sense, the answer to that question is pretty simple.

Alan Kurschner: “Every single early church father who taught on the relationship between the Church and the antichrist believed that the Church would face the Antichrist before Jesus returns.”

Charles Cooper: “The belief that Christ was going to return after Antichrist had done damage to the body, that believers had suffered and had been under his rampage, and that they would be set free from that by the appearing of Christ in the sky. That is the basic sequence. And you will see that in the writings of the fathers; you’ll see that in the, say, the Didache….”

Ryan Habbena: “As we kind of look at their collected writings, they believed in the truth that the Church was going to encounter the Antichrist and that the coming of Christ was going to occur in the wake of their encountering of the Antichrist.”

It’s not just Prewrathers that think this either. Pretrib scholars would by and large agree with what was just said.

I mentioned in the section of this film about imminence a paper written by a Pretribulational early church expert named Larry Crutchfield, in which he concluded that while he couldn’t find any evidence of Pretribulationism in the early church. He did find what he called “intratribulationism” by which he meant people who believed they would be raptured out of the middle of the persecution of the Antichrist, which is essentially Prewrath.

In another paper written more recently, James Stitzinger, who is very much a Pretribulationist, agrees with Crutchfield’s conclusion when he wrote:

“The early fathers largely held to a period of persecution that would be ongoing when the return of the Lord takes place,and most would see the church suffering through some portion of the tribulation period.”

He further writes:

“A type of imminent intratribulationism (Crutchfield) or imminent posttribulationism (Walvoord) with occasional pretribulational inferences was believed.”

In this paper, he quotes fifteen church fathers which as we will see, certainly do not help his case, and then oddly concludes his paper by contradicting his opening statement when he says:

“George Ladd (post tribulationlist) is no longer credible when he writes, “We can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church, and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century.”

So, I’m going to go through these quotes he provided, so I can show you his logic and by extension, most Pretribulational logic as it concerns the church fathers.

Before we get started though, I want to reiterate something that is crucially important:

As I said, these Pretribbers know and freely admit that the early church almost without exception believed that the rapture would occur after the Antichrist showed up and began to persecute the Church. They also freely admit those church fathers that mentioned the 7-year timeline in relationship to the rapture, universally believed the rapture would take place in the last half of the 3.5-year period. 

So, Pretribbers know very well that they will never, ever win an argument about the early church teaching Pretribulationism in any kind of traditional way. It’s just far too obvious that the early church was anything but Pretribulational.

So, what they do is never mention to their congregations what they early church actually believed about the timing of the rapture, and instead claim that the early church believed in imminence. You’ll remember that is the idea that Jesus could return at any moment. So the thinking is, if they can prove that the early church believed the rapture could come at any moment, they will call that proof of Pretribulationism, even if the church father in question also taught the rapture would occur after the midpoint, and after the persecution of the Church by the Antichrist which is the very opposite of Pretribulationism.

And as absurd as that premise is, they don’t even manage to accomplish that much.

In Stitzinger’s paper, six out of the fifteen quotes from the early church can be placed into a category which could be called “imaginary imminence prooftexts.”

This is where he quotes early church fathers who mention words that Pretribbers have defined as meaning imminence, but don’t actually mean imminence.

For example, a church father might mention that the rapture is coming “soon” or that it is “near” or that it will be “sudden” or that we should “watch” for it. 

On the one hand we could rehash what we talked about in the section on imminence, which is, that just because something is soon or near doesn’t mean it is imminent. A harvest of crops can be near, but that doesn’t mean the harvest will occur at any moment with no preceding signs.

Another way to prove this wrong is by noticing that in most cases, the same writers Stitzinger says believed in imminency, also teach in other places that lots of signs, will come before the rapture. In other words, when a church father said that the rapture is “at hand” or “near” they clearly didn’t mean it was imminent since they also said there would be lots of prophesied events before the rapture.

One of the best ways to illustrate this is with the Didache:

Alan Kurschner: “The very first document outside of the New Testament is called the Didache. And it was written roughly of the turn of the first century.”

In his paper Stitzinger says the following: “The final chapter of the Didache provides one of the clearest and comprehensive statements on imminency.”

And then, he quotes this line:

“Be watchful for your life; let your lamps not be quenched and your loins not ungirded butbe ye ready; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh.”

So, the writer of the Didache is simply telling his readers to be watchful and to be ready because they don’t know the day or the hour of the rapture.

As we have seen, in the Pretrib mind, if you are watchful and ready for something it means that thing could occur at any moment, and that such words in and of themselves are proof of imminence.

But If you read the full quote from the Didache, you will see that the writer goes on to name the various signs he wanted them to watch for. Signs he believed, must come before the rapture. By my count there are 18 events that the writer believed would need to come to pass before the rapture. Most notably the Antichrist declaring himself to be the Son of God, and the persecution of Christians that would follow that event.

So, you can see the problem. Stitzinger tells his readers that the writers of the Didache clearly and comprehensively taught the rapture could come at any moment just like he believes.  But all you have to do is read a few lines after this quote to find out that the writer actually believed there were multiple things that must happen before the rapture i.e., the opposite of imminence. This is by no means the only instance of a Pretribulational scholar, in a highly respected journal quoting church fathers out of context. It’s unfortunately incredibly common.

David Rosenthal: “Many have tried to look at some of the quotes from some of the early church fathers and have tried to say, ‘Well, see, it looks like they’re Pretribulational because they hold to imminence (which is the idea that Jesus Christ can return at any moment). There are no prophesied events that need to transpire before He returns.’ And I would suggest to you, strongly, that the early church fathers did not subscribe to an imminent rapture. Conversely, many of them understood and made it clear in their writings that there would be a time of coming persecution before believers would be raptured.”

The centerpiece of Pretribulational church father quotes, though, is from Pseudo-Ephraem, and I should mention that we have moved well beyond the early church at this point.  This particular quote was from the Middle Ages, and it is almost certainly a forgery.

Charles Cooper: “Pseudo-Ephraem. Thousands of dollars spent, countless hours spent searching every historical record we could find for a reference or proof of the Pretrib position. [They] come up with a document that’s called Pseudo-Ephraem. Pseudo means false. So, here is a writing ascribed to a man named Ephraem that everybody knows he didn’t write it. And it supposedly is proof of a Pretrib rapture. Now, [we have] lots of writings written by somebody who wanted it to be more important than it really was, so, he put the name of an important person on it in order to give it legitimacy. We have lots of those writings. But the fact that the Pretrib system would use one of those writings as a basis for the proof of their position, to me, is unconscionable.”

But regardless of who wrote it, this is the section they will usually quote:

“All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.”

Stitzinger says the following of Pseudo-Ephraem in general:

“It describes the imminent rapture, followed by 3½ years of great tribulation under the rule of Antichrist, followed by the coming of Christ, the defeat of Antichrist, and the eternal state.”

Let’s talk about the “before the tribulation” quote first. As we discussed at the beginning of this film, the word “tribulation” has only recently been used to refer to the entire 7-year period, like the way modern Pretribbers use it. And if Pseudo-Ephraem did mean to refer to the entire 7-year period when he used this word “tribulation,” it would be the earliest recorded instance of the word being used that way.

The Greek word thilipsis, or tribulation, is used in many ways in the Bible. It can refer to the Wrath of God, general persecution, or earthly worries; it depends on the context. So, the question that Stitzinger forgets to ask here, is what does this writer mean when he uses the word “tribulation”? What does the writer think we are going to escape by the rapture—is it the Wrath of God, the persecution of the antichrist, all of it?

The answer is not what Pretribbers want it to be at all which is why they never quote the final paragraph of this letter, which says:

“And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world…will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty,… and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because His hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come, and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth.”

Now remember Stitzinger said that this writer said that the rapture would be followed by 3.5 years of rule under of the Antichrist.

But this shows that the writer believed that the rapture, where the sleeping ones arise at the angelic trumpet sound, would occur after the 3.5 year period, so that’s either Midrib, Prewrath or Posttrib, the only thing it really can’t be is Pretrib.

Charles Cooper: “When I looked at the document and studied it, it seemed to me that it argued more for a Midtrib rapture or a rapture that was certainly not Pretribulational. It didn’t seem to me to support the idea that there was going to be a rapture before the 70^th week even started.”

There [are] actually a couple ways to check our facts here. The first is this idea about being thrown into confusion. Here in this last paragraph this confusion is what happens after the rapture, the author equates the judgment of the world and the Wrath of God with “confusion.”

And if we go back up to the quote Pretribbers always use, we can see something interesting when it says:

“All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.” 

This confusion is what the writer said Christians would escape by participating in the rapture. So, we have contextual proof that when the writer said the Church would escape the tribulation, he was using the word “tribulation” to describe the wrath or judgment of God upon those left behind.

We certainly know he wasn’t talking about escaping the Antichrist or persecution since he absolutely believed the Church would face the Antichrist before the rapture. So once again, the Pretrib’s swing and miss when it comes to the church fathers.

Another five of his fifteen quotes in this paper are from about 1586 to 1795. They are quotes from Premillennial Historicists who believed in something called the “pre-conflagration theory.” 

Now on the one hand these quotes are irrelevant because they are all things that Prewrathers believe, too. Take, for example, this quote from Peter Jurieu who died in 1713: 

“Christ would come in the air to rapture the saints and return to heaven before the battle of Armageddon.”

This quote may be a problem for some Posttribulationists, but Prewrathers—like Pretribbers—believe that the rapture will happen well before Armageddon. That is—the rapture happens, and then Armageddon happens later on.

So, it’s notable that Stitzinger wastes a full five of his fifteen quotes on something that is at best a rebuke of some Posttribulationists. You might as well call these proof for the Prewrath rapture, if your only criteria is that the quote must be bad for Posttribulationists.

Interestingly, Thomas Ice of the Pretrib Resource Center wrote a paper which is effectively rebuking people like Stitzinger, who use quotes from pre-conflagrationalists and claim they are supporting Pretribulationism, because as Ice (who obviously is a Pretribber) notes:  

“Mede’s interval (The pre-conflagration theory) between the rapture and the second coming is likely only hours or days, but not years as required by a Pretribulational viewpoint. The 2^nd Peter 3:10 conflagration is a final destruction of the heavens and earth in preparation for the millennium within Mede’s system.”

Stitzinger never mentioned any of this in his paper. In fact, he points to one of these conflagration quotes from John Gill in his conclusion as conclusive proof for a pre-Darby belief in the Pretrib rapture which is utterly absurd.

The few quotes I haven’t dealt with yet are pretty easily dismissed. For example, he quotes a cult leader in the 1300s—and even the guy who originally published this particular quote admits that the writer actually believed that “they were living in the last three and a half years of End-time tribulation.” So, whatever it is, it’s not Pretribulationism.

In conclusion, Pretribbers know they can’t find anything close to Pretribulationism in the early church fathers.

The early church almost without exception taught that the rapture would take place at some unknown time after the Antichrist arrived and began persecuting Christians. In other words, if you had to pick a modern rapture position that best fit the early church, it’s obviously the Prewrath position.

******************************************************************

If you liked this film, please consider sharing it with your friends and family. It is by far the best way to help get the message out. We are counting on the small percentage of you that understood and were impacted by this film to reach those that you feel need to hear this message.

This film is free on the web, but you can buy physical copies at our website <7pretribproblems.com> where we will provide free resources, videos, and much more content to learn about the Prewrath rapture. 

Thanks for watching!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

One of the foundational arguments for the Pretribulational rapture is concerning the relationship between National Israel and the Church. It’s based on Daniel 9:24-27 where we find the so called 70 weeks prophecy. This prophecy is where we get the concept of a future 7-year period, in which the majority of the end times events take place.

This prophecy in Daniel is about the future of Israel, the “weeks” (as in the 70 weeks prophecy) are understood to mean groups of seven years.  So, 70 weeks would be 70 groups of seven years, which works out to 490 years.

In Daniel, these 70 weeks are divided with the first 69 weeks having been fulfilled in the past, and the final week, the final 7-year period, still awaiting fulfilment in the future.

And that during the gap, between the first 69 weeks and the final week, there has been something like 2,000 years and counting. This gap of time that we are currently in is commonly referred to as the Church Age.

Most of the proponents of the various rapture positions we have mentioned in this film like Pretrib, Posttrib, and Prewrath all agree on the basics of this prophecy—that there is a future 7-year period in which the end times events will primarily play out, and that the 7-year period will culminate with God fulfilling His promises to National Israel.

Alan Hultberg: “I think the scriptures are very clear in that God has a future for Israel and that that future is going to be culminated in the millennial reign of Christ on Earth after His return.”

Pretribulationists, however, have proposed a unique interpretation of this prophecy which supports their view of the rapture.

The theory is that God does not work with Israel and the Church at the same time; they insist that a hard distinction must be made here. That God has completely and totally paused his dealings with National Israel during the Church Age.

Prewrath takes a similar view, with the difference being that Prewrath teaches that God has only relatively postponed his dealings with Israel during this Church Age, not absolutely, and that God can, and has worked with both the Church and Israel during the Church Age, and that He will continue to do so in the final 7-year period.

The reason Pretribbers are so insistent that God will absolutely not work with the Church and Israel at the same time, is because they use that particular idea in one of their arguments for the Pretrib rapture.

Which is that since the 70 weeks prophecy was made to Israel, and is about Israel, and since the time between those two sections of the 70 weeks is the Church Age, they say that when the clock starts on this prophecy again, it will be all about Israel, and so the Church must be raptured before it begins.

Alan Kurschner: “They’ll say that God doesn’t work with Israel and the Church at the same time. [They say that] ‘Israel is going to be part of the seven-year period. Therefore, the Church cannot be part of the 7-year period.’”

Alan Hultberg: “The assumption is that God cannot deal with Israel and the Church at the same time. And so, [they also assume that] since Daniel’s 70^th Week was part of God’s dealing with Israel, the Church must not be on earth when Daniel’s 70^th Week begins.”

Let’s start with their premise that because this 70-weeks prophecy was made to and concerning Israel; that the Church will not have any part in its fulfilment.

One great way to show the complete inconsistency of Pretribulational thinking here is by turning to Jeremiah 31:31-34 where we see a prophecy that in many ways is just like the 70 weeks prophecy. For example, it was explicitly given to Israeland was concerning only Israel. (For example, it says: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”) and like the 70 weeks prophecy is was given at a time when the Church didn’t even exist.

But in this case, nearly every Christian agrees that this prophecy applies to the Church, as well, as it is talking about the New Covenant instituted by Christ in which the Spirit of God will dwell within the hearts of man and change them from the inside out.

Before I show more evidence that this idea is wrong, I would like you to notice that this critical doctrine among Pretribulationists that God does not, will not work with Israel and the Church at the same time has no actual prooftexts like other doctrines do. It is merely an assumption among Pretribulationists, and worse, it’s an assumption that they routinely abandon when it suits them.

Take for example, the so-called “Tribulation Saints” idea. Whenever a Pretribber reads in the Bible about Christians existing within the last 7-year period (which is a very frequent occurrence) they call those people Tribulation Saints, people of various nationalities left behind after the rapture who become Christians. Well if God won’t work with the Church and Israel at the same time, how to they explain these Tribulation Saints? Are they not saved? Do they not have the Holy Spirit? Are the Gentile believers among them not the Church? Is God not working with them because He won’t work with them and the Jews at the same time?

To drive the nail in the coffin of this unbiblical doctrine that God won’t work with Israel and the Church at the same time, let me simply show you lots of places where the Bible says God works with both groups in the past, in the present, and in the future.

In the Past

God worked with Israel during the Church Age in AD 70. Before the death and resurrection of Jesus, during the Old Covenant dispensation, a prophecy was given to Israel concerning God judging Israel with the Temple’s destruction.

Alan Kurschner: “Jesus, on a number of occasions, He prophesied the judgment on Israel. When did that happen? In A.D. 70.”

In the Present

God is also working with both the Church and Israel at the same time in present, in at least two ways. The first is that God is making Israel jealous and saving a remnant of Jews during the Church Age.

Paul cites the following prophecy about God making Israel jealous through extending His salvation to the Gentiles:

“But again, I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, ‘I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.’ And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, ‘I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for Me.’”

Paul responds to Moses’ and Isaiah’s prophecies exclaiming God’s faithfulness to His promise to Israel:

“I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous… For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

God is using the salvation of Gentiles as a means to provoke Israel to come to salvation, and He is in fact saving a remnant through those means at this time.

Ryan Habbena: “If we look at the last two thousand years plus, God has been dealing with Israel and the Church at the same time. The Church defined as the assembly of the Lord of both Jew and Gentile, God has the gospel going out and He is gathering the constituents of His kingdom—and He has been doing that. But Israel is still His chosen nation, still His people. They are still under discipline. There still is a remnant being saved.”

The other way God is working with Israel in the present age is by God regathering Israel back to their homeland.

A key aspect to this would be the monumental event of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948. God has been—and continues to this day—providentially regathering Jews to their homeland, Israel.

The prophet Ezekiel prophesied that this would happen in his “dry bones” prophecy in Ezekiel 37:1-14.

Alan Kurschner: “In 1948, Israel became a nation again. It’s fulfilling… these are the dry bones, of course. The flesh, the flesh part of the prophecy has not been fulfilled. That’s going to be the spiritual regeneration of Israel. That will happen at the end of the 7-year period. But the “dry bones” part of the Ezekiel prophecy—by the way, Ezekiel’s prophecy was made to Israel, but it’s being fulfilled during the Church Age.”  

In the Future

This next one cuts to the very core of the matter, since if you can show that God in the future, works with both Israel and the Church, specifically during the final 7-year period, you have refuted the very foundation of this odd doctrine. And while there are many ways to show this, there is one in particular that I like the best since it is so ironclad. And it is found in Revelation 12 which says:

“But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Rev. 12:12-17).

Here we have a picture of events squarely within the last 7-year period, and yet we read that after the dragon becomes furious at his inability to get to the representative of Israel i.e., the woman, he then goes after the Church i.e., those that hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Both groups are obviously on earth at the same time, and obviously during the final week of Daniel because of the reference so the last 3.5 years in verse 14. So, it follows that God is, in fact, working with both groups at the same time in the end times, as well.

Alan Kurschner: “God works with Israel and the Church at the same time in the past and in the present. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Church will also enter into (with Israel) this future 7-year period. The Antichrist is going to go after both groups, not just Israel but Israel and the Church during the Great Tribulation.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Alan Hultberg: “Imminence is really a keystone issue for the Pretribulational Rapture.”

Alan Kurschner: “Well, in the Pretribulational theological sense of the term, imminence means that there are no prophesied events that must happen before the rapture. The rapture is sign less; it could happen at any moment—right now.  And hence, they consider the rapture imminent.”

It’s hard to overemphasize how important this idea of imminence is to the concept of the Pretribulational rapture. Pretribbers often claim that imminency and Pretribulationism are basically one in the same thing. Take, for example, this quote from one of the most prominent Pretribulational scholars, John Walvoord:

 “For the most part, scriptural evidence for imminence today is equivalent to proof of the pretribulation viewpoint. For all practical purposes, abandonment of the Pretribulational return of Christ is tantamount to abandonment of the hope of His imminent return.”

The first thing that you should know about imminence is that it is a brand-new doctrine.

It appears to have originated in the early 1800s with the so-called Plymouth Brethren and John Darby. And there is no sign of the belief in an “imminent rapture before the Antichrist arrives” among any of the of the church fathers of the previous 1,800 years before Darby.

And it’s not just pretrib critics saying that, even Pretribulationists agree that it cannot be found in the writings of the early church.

Take for example Dr. Larry Crutchfield, an expert in church history and a Pretribulationist. He spent a huge amount of time looking for evidence of imminence in the early church writings, and concluded his paper on the subject like this:

“While there are in the writings of the early fathers seeds from which the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture could be developed, it is difficult to find in them an unequivocal statement of the type of imminency usually believed in by pretribulationists”… We do not say that the early fathers were pretribulationists in the modern sense, only that the seeds were indeed there.”

Earlier in the paper, Crutchfield said that what the early church did believe about the timing of the rapture should be termed something like “imminent intra-tribulationism” meaning that most of the church fathers believed that the rapture would only come after the Antichrist was revealed and the persecution of Christians began. They believed the rapture would be imminent, but only after the certain precursors occurred, most notably the abomination of desolation at the midpoint.

This Pretribulational expert on the church Fathers, therefore, is essentially telling his readers that the early church was for all intents and purposes…. Prewrath.

We will deal more with the early church in the last section of this film, but for now we will go through all the ways Pretribbers will try to prove imminence from the Bible alone.

If you take all the verses that Pretribulationists use to prove imminence a few patterns emerge, so we have categorized each prooftext into its own group.

The first group, I will call “waiting for” verses. This includes verses like Titus 2:13 which says:

“Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Or Philippians 3:20 which says:

“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

You can see another example of this type of prooftext in 1^st Corinthians 1:7, but the basic idea is that believers should wait for and be expectant of Christ’s return.

There is no technical reason to believe that these verses are speaking of imminence. In other words, you can do a word study in Greek with the terms for “waiting for” or “await” and you will find that these words do not mean that no events will occur before something or another takes place, or that something could happen at any moment. They mean pretty much what they mean in English, that you are just…waiting for something.

In the case of this waiting for group of proof texts, a Pretribulationist would say that if you are eagerly waiting for the rapture, then the rapture must be able to happen at any moment, but it should be obvious, that that doesn’t logically follow.

You can eagerly await all kinds of things that are not imminent, You can eagerly await Christmas, but it doesn’t mean Christmas can occur at any moment, You can eagerly await a wedding, but it doesn’t mean that the wedding will happen at any moment.

You can see a biblical example that imminence is not the logical conclusion of eagerly awaiting something in 2^nd Peter 3:13 where it says,

“But according to his promise we are waiting for (prosdokaō) new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

Alan Kurschner: “The Apostle Peter says that we are to watch for and to expect the new heavens and new earth. But we know, and even Pretribulationists would admit, there are certain prophesied events that have to happen before the new heavens and a new earth. So, if to watch means imminence that then they would have to admit that the new heavens and a new earth are imminent events, which of course they would not admit.”

What the Bible is saying is that we should as Christians look forward to, wait for, and eagerly anticipate all the wonderful things that God has in store for us, including His return, so we can begin our Eternal Life and be with Him.

But to be expectant of something is obviously not the same thing as thinking it will happen at any moment.

The next group of prooftexts for imminence could be called, “Be good because Jesus is returning.”

This is probably the largest group of pretrib proof texts for imminence, which consist of verses like 1^st John 2:28 which says:

“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears, we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at His coming.”

Or Hebrews 10:24 and 25 which says:

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

There are a few more verses like this that are basically saying the same thing. That Christians should strive to live moral lives, to do “good works,” and that they should live those moral lives because Jesus is returning.

The argument Pretribbers would make here is that because the New Testament writers are telling people to be morally blameless because of Jesus’ return, it must mean that His return could happen at any moment without signs. In other words, according to Pretribbers, the New Testament writers were telling people that they should keep doing good, because if they don’t, they could get caught doing something bad, because Jesus could return at any moment, and surprise them while they were sinning.  

Pretribbers have taken this concept very seriously and have even developed a doctrine about sanctification which uses this idea as its base. That is that the fear of being caught in the act of sinning from an imminent rapture keeps Christians on the straight and narrow path.

Alan Kurschner: “Pretribulational teacher John MacArthur claims that our very sanctification depends on imminence. He says, quote, ‘The hope of Christ imminent return is therefore the hinge on which a proper understanding of sanctification turns.’”

Ryan Habbena: “This position really does not accurately reflect how the Scriptures declare we are to seek to live godly in Christ Jesus.”

Charles Cooper: “I live the Christian life because I love God. The fact that His Son is coming for me is added benefit. But not knowing when He’s going to come does not demure my desire to live holy at all.”

Alan Hultberg: “You better have more motivation than merely the fear that Jesus is going to come back to lead a life of committed discipleship. If that’s your only reason for being committed to Christ or submitting to his lordship, then you’ve got a deficient view of discipleship.”

The question is though, is there a better explanation for why the Bible says that Christians should do good works because of Christ’s return?

The answer is resoundingly, yes! In fact, these verses which Pretribbers think are about imminence are really just a few more examples of one of the most prominent themes in the New Testament, which is that Christians should live godly lives in light of the fact that they have been given eternal life.

Let’s turn back to 2^nd Peter 3 to show how this works:

“Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since [we] are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him.”

This verse shows us that the reason we are told to live godly lives is not because of an imminent rapture, or anything at all to do with being surprised by something unexpected. Rather, the point Peter is making is that the new heavens and new earth are a picture of the Eternal Life that a believer is promised. That is why we should live godly lives, because of the joy of our inheritance, because of the sureness of our resurrection to Eternal Life.

When you look at the other so called prooftexts in this group, it becomes clear the same theme here in 2^nd Peter is in view, and that the only reason those verses even mention the rapture is because the rapture is the very picture of Eternal Life, it’s the moment believers become immortal, but the point is exactly the same.

Let me show a few more verses where it says the same thing in the supposed imminence prooftexts except the rapture is replaced with Eternal Life, so we can be sure this is less about the event of the rapture, but more about what the rapture represents i.e. our Eternal Life.

“For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.” (Gal. 6:8-9).

Here Paul says that reaping Eternal Life is a reason Christians should not grow weary of doing good, not the rapture, not being scared of being caught by something sudden, but because of something sure, and wonderful.

I know some of you are thinking this is a little too legalistic for comfort, are we to do good works to obtain Eternal Life? Well, don’t worry because in the next verse Paul clears all that up.

It’s found in one of the most famous passages in the Bible, 1^st Corinthians 15:58:

“Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”

Since this verse comes directly after Paul was talking about the amazing gifts of immortality, “Death where is your sting” and all that, we can see that he is saying here that Christians do good works because Eternal Life is a sure thing, it’s real. Our good works are not in vain. We will be rewarded on That Day. We will live eternally in the new heavens and new earth with Jesus! That is the blessed hope of Christians.

In any case, I hope you can at least agree that whatever these verses mean, they are most certainly not giving us any information about whether or not there are prophesied events before the rapture. Hopefully, you are starting to see how absurd that particular idea is.

The next group of prooftexts for imminence is the easiest to dismiss. For some reason, these verses always appear in pretrib lists of prooftexts, but all they prove is that Christians will not go through the Wrath of God which of course, Prewrath and many other viewpoints also teach.

One example from this group would be 1^st Thessalonians 5:9 which says:

“For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In a recent major theological paper that was supposed to be about proving the Doctrine of Imminence, two of the six verses offered up in defense of imminence were these two verses which have literally nothing to do with imminence.

You can carefully read through the argumentation on these verses in that paper and see, he doesn’t even try to make an argument for imminence, he is literally just using these verses to show that the Church will not go through the Wrath of God and I guess hoping his readers will believe that somehow proves imminence.

The next type of prooftext for imminence is one of the strangest, but also one of the more popular. It could be called “the-rapture-is-a-good-thing” prooftext, and it comes from John 14:

 “Let not your hearts be troubled.Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.And you know the way to where I am going.”

So, you may be asking yourself, were does this talk about the rapture coming at any moment, or that there are no prophesized events that come before the rapture. Well don’t worry, you didn’t see it because they derive imminence from this verse in a way that is…less than obvious.

Their argument has two premises: 1) that Jesus implies that the rapture is a good thing when he says “Let not your hearts be troubled,” and 2) that the rapture is, in fact, what Jesus is talking about because He says “I will come again and will take you to myself,” which is a reference to the rapture.

So far, I am in total agreement with these premises—the rapture will be good, and this passage is about the rapture.

But the odd conclusion Pretribulationists draw from these two points is that because the rapture is considered good by Jesus, it therefore can’t have anything bad before it, namely the persecution of the Antichrist.

They insist that if Christians were to go through some kind of persecution before the rapture, then Jesus would not have implied that they should not be troubled about it.  

First of all, the reason that Jesus told them not to “be troubled” was not because they were worried about persecution just before the rapture; He told them not to be troubled because of what they were talking about just before He said this:

“Simon Peter said to him, ‘Lord, where are you going?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.’”

After Jesus tells them what He does, He then concludes it by saying, “And you know the way to where I am going.” So, we know that the “let not your hearts be troubled” statement was concerning their fear that they would not know where he was going, or how to follow Him there.

To further illustrate how absurd the idea is that Jesus was saying, “Let not your hearts be troubled” to assure His followers that they would not have to go through terrible persecution before the rapture, consider that most of these very disciples would be tortured to death not many years after this. In fact, millions of Christians have died in the past and will die because of persecution. The fact that the rapture is a good thing is in no way promising that the events just before it, will be without pain. And more to the point, this verse is not even in the same ballpark as a discussion about whether or not there will be prophesied events before the rapture, contextually.

Just in case you think we are cherry picking bad arguments for imminence, that paper I mentioned earlier opens up with this verse. It is the headliner argument he has for imminence, but all it really does is demonstrate how bankrupt the argument for imminence really is in modern Pretribulationism.

The next group of prooftexts are what I call “nearnessprooftexts.” These are verses that speak of the rapture as being near or soon. A prominent example is in Philippians 4:5 which says:

“Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand.”

And there are several others like this. But the doctrine being expressed in each of them is that the Lord’s return is near. And because it’s been around 2,000 years since the time these verses were written people are usually looking for a new definition of the word near (or at hand), and Pretribbers choose to define it as imminent.

Once again, we need to point out that the underlying Greek is of no help here.

The words being used don’t have a technical meaning of imminence or that something will happen at any moment, according to the lexicons they just mean that something is near.

Let’s look at one of the most famous passages, supposedly about imminence to see If we can tell if James is talking about an any moment rapture:

“Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains. You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.”

This verse from James is clearly parallel to Jesus’s teaching of the fig tree parable in Matthew 24. We know this in part because of the word “near” and the idea that the judge is standing at the door. Both of which appear in the Fig Tree parable. But most of all we know its derivative because it is the exact same teaching about the same issue, the rapture.

In the Fig Tree parable, Jesus is saying that you will know that His return is near (engys) at the very door or gates (thyra) because you will see certain signs (namely the signs He just got done telling them about) in the same way that you can tell summer is near by studying the leaves on a fig tree. You will see the signs and know His return is near.

James is saying the same thing with his agricultural parallel. That the harvest of fruit (the rapture) cannot occur until certain things happen first “until it receives the early and late rains.” And so, they need to be patient and establish their hearts.

Obviously the harvest (or rapture) is not supposed to be understood as “imminent” in this illustration, as a number of things have to happen before crops can be harvested, not the least of which is the early and latter rains, and the actual growing of the crops. Even James, telling his readers to be patient three times in this passage is the exact opposite thing to teach if what he meant was that the rapture could occur at any moment.

While it is true that the rapture being spoken of as being near is a difficult thing to understand in light of it having been 2,000 years and counting since the prophecy was made. I don’t think it means we should go looking for a new definition of the word near.

I think we can take some instruction from this passage in 2^nd Peter 3 which seems to suggest that any delay in events leading up to the rapture and the Day of the Lord, is to allow for more to be saved before the judgment begins:

“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:8-9). 

And that brings us to our final group of prooftexts which is the “Thief in the Night” prooftexts.

There are several instances in Scripture in which the return of Jesus is spoken of like a thief:

“For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1Thess. 5:2).

The idea is that if Jesus’ is return is unexpected, like a thief breaking into your house at night, then it must be imminent. Interestingly, this line of argumentation seems to have fallen out of popularity with Pretribbers recently, because if you follow the thief idea throughout the New Testament, it ironically ends up proving imminence wrong.

The reason for that is that all of these “coming like a thief” verses can be traced back to Jesus, Who in this section of the Olivet Discourse was talking about the need for His followers to watch for the signs of His return. He says:

“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore, you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

This is confirmed in spades all throughout the New Testament where the idea of the thief is specifically about the importance of watching for the signs of the return of Christ, and that the Lords return “like a thief” is only for those unbelievers who do not know or care to watch for it.”

Let’s take the very verse Pretribbers use in 1^st Thessalonians 5 and put it back in context to show the utter uselessness of the thief idea to prove imminence:

“Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you.  For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.  While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.  But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.  For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.  So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober.“

Alan Kurschner: “The Thief motif is not talking about an imminent event.  What it is talking about is that when He does return, it’s going to happen suddenly. That’s different than the idea of imminence. Jesus’ return will come as a thief, but it’s going to come as a thief to unbelievers, not believers.” 

So, the return of Christ will only be like a thief for unbelievers. For them it will come suddenly and unexpectantly because they will not be watching for the signs of it. And the very idea of watching for signs of the rapture means that there are prophesied events before the rapture.

Charles Cooper: “If you tell me to watch. Then I’ve got to be watching for something.”

All the disciples, most of the early church, millions of Christians of all ages have been brutally tortured and killed for their faith.  It is something Jesus over and over told us not only to expect but to rejoice in.

So, I can’t follow the logic that says that the rapture will prevent one small group of Christians from persecution—but not others. 

Whatever the Blessed Hope is, it must be a blessed hope for all those martyrs of the past, as well.  Which is, of course, the resurrection to Eternal Life itself.

I believe that like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, simply revealing to Pretribbers what the most Pretribulationists really teach about imminence is enough to understand that the concept of an imminent rapture is a totally new, fraudulent doctrine that needs to quickly be abandoned for the good of the Church.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS