Bible Prophecy Talk Podcast

Chris White continues his multi-part study on the timing of the events during the 70th week. This episode is about the covenants and sacrifices at the beginning of the 7-year period. For additional study on this topic, visit Chris’ website at Bible Prophecy Talk Podcast. 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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