Category: Bible Prophecy Talk

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

There are several passages in the book of Revelation supporting the idea that the Church will face the Antichrist’s persecution just before the rapture, and that both the rapture and the Day of the Lord, will not begin until after the midpoint of the 7-year period. This is all, of course, contrary to the traditional Pretrib model which teaches that the rapture will occur before the 7-year period begins.

In the book of Revelation most of the events that take place in the book correspond to various stages of a symbolic scroll being opened. For example, there are 7 seals on the scroll, and each time a seal is removed, a prophetic event takes place. After all seven of the seals are removed, seven angels with seven trumpets are introduced. And one at a time each angel blows their trumpet and a new prophetic event takes place until finally seven angels with seven bowls of wrath appear and seven more events take place.

There are a variety of different viewpoints in Pretribulationism as to the exact timing of the events that correspond to these seals, trumpets, and bowls. The main difference between Pretribulationism and Prewrath in this regard, is that most Pretribulationists believe that all the seals in Revelation chapter six, as well as the trumpets and bowls found in later chapters, are events that take place during the Day of the Lord’s wrath.

Prewrathers believe the seven seals on the outside of this proverbial scroll are not the Wrath of God, but rather only the contents of the scroll, represented in the book by the trumpets and bowls, are the Day of the Lord’s wrath.

Ryan Habbena: “And so these seven seals are preconditions that need to be met before the scroll is opened. It is only after all seven seals are broken that the scroll can be opened and then the Wrath of God unfolds. And this is exactly what we see in the flow of Revelation 6-8.”

Prewrathers point out that the events that take place during the seals are mostly things that are the direct result of the Antichrist’s evil workings, not the result of Gods Wrath. For example, the first seal is the introduction of the Antichrist as the rider on the white horse, the second seal is about the wars that the Antichrist will fight as he gains power. Then in the next two seals you have famines, and people being killed in large numbers quote “with the sword.”

The 5^th seal is an interesting one, and this is where many Prewrathers begin their argument that these seals cannot be a part God’s Wrath.

Charles Cooper: “The martyrs that are depicted in the revelation at the fifth seal, in my opinion, is one of the strongest arguments for the Prewrath position.”

Alan Kurschner: “Pretribulationists claim that the seals on the scroll, the seven seals scroll, the seals are all God’s Wrath, but that’s contradicted by the fifth seal. In Revelation 6:9 it says,

[Reading]: ‘Now when the lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given. They cried out with a loud voice saying, ‘How long, Sovereign Master, holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood?’ Each of them was given a long white robe. And they were told to rest for a little longer until the full number was reached both their fellow servants and their brothers who were going to be killed just as they had been.’”

Charles Cooper: “‘But they ask God, when are you going to start your wrath on the people on the earth who are responsible for our death?’ Now that, that is powerful in my opinion, because to me that explicitly declares that the Wrath of God, that eschatological wrath has not begun.”

Alan Hultberg: “‘How long? Oh, lord, until you vindicate our blood on those who dwell in the earth.’ In other words, it hasn’t been happening yet up to the fifth seal. They’re told to wait a little while until the rest of your brethren are killed. And then the sixth seal is open, and the great day of God’s Wrath has arrived.”

There are very few Pretrib responses to this issue, but one example is from Robert Thomas who, though he doesn’t say it directly, implies that what the martyrs were actually doing is crying out for God’s Wrath to finish. In other words, the martyrs are crying out for the end of Gods Wrath, not for God’s Wrath to begin.

The problem of course is that the plain reading in both the Greek and English of this phrase, “How long before you judge and avenge our blood?” means that no judgment of any kind has begun at that point. This is reiterated in the next verse when God tells them to wait a little while longer until the full number of Christian martyrs are killed. Both grammatically and contextually, God has not begun his judgement on the wicked at this point, which is probably why we found so few Pretrib commentators willing to try to explain this passage at all.

This causes another problem for Pretribbers, because if God’s wrath has begun by this point as they say, it would mean that these Christian martyrs in the 5^th seal had been going through God’s Wrath, which contradicts the doctrine that Christians will not go through the Wrath of God derived from 1^st Thessalonians 5:9 and other places, a doctrine that is agreed upon by all sides of this debate.

Alan Kurschner: “God promises that, that believers will not have to experience the Wrath of God—the Day of the Lord’s Wrath. And yet Pretribulationists contradict themselves when they say that the fifth seal is God’s wrath. You can’t have both!”

David Rosenthal: “Is God superintending the martyrdom of His faithful chosen followers? Of course not! And so, we’re not in the Wrath of God at this point.”

Pretribulationists try to get around this by calling these Christians “Tribulation Saints.” They define “Tribulation Saints” as people left behind in the rapture who become Christians during the Day of the Lord.

Alan Kurschner: “Well, a common argument that I hear often is that, ‘Oh, well, these believers, they’re not, quote unquote, part of the Church. They’re their quote unquote “Tribulation Saints.” And that they’ll even go to the extent, not all of them, but some of them will actually say, ‘You know, because they didn’t accept Christ before the rapture this is like a certain a certain judgment on them.’ I’m sorry, that’s absurd! And it also, again, it contradicts what Paul says in 1^st Thessalonians 5 is that we are promised exemption from God’s Wrath.”

Some Pretribulationists, Bill Salus for one, have proposed an entirely new theory which removes the 5^th seal from the 70^th week altogether. Salus places the first five seals before the 7-year period, which avoids the 5^th seal martyr problem, but this model is almost unheard in Pretrib circles. While many Pretribbers argue about where to put the first three seals, and some Pretribbers do, in fact, put the first three seals before the seven-year period begins, placing the 4^th and 5^th seals before the seven years is fairly radical, because they have such strong ties to the midpoint of the 7-year period. But it does have the one benefit of keeping these 5th seal martyrs out of the Wrath of God, and thus avoiding this major contradiction.

The next bit of evidence to which Prewrathers point to show that the Wrath of God has not begun during the seals, is the celestial disturbance sign found in the next seal, the 6^th seal. This is the sign which Joel 2:31 says will occur “before the Day of the Lord.” So, if this sign in the sun, moon, and stars in Revelation 6 is the same one that Joel talked about, then the Day of the Lord cannot have begun by this point because this sign happens before the Day of the Lord begins.

We see evidence that this cosmic disturbance sign in Revelation 6 is in fact the same one that announces that the Day of the Lord’s wrath, because as a result of people seeing this sign in the heavens, we see the following reaction:

“Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?’” (Rev. 6:15–17).

Here again, a plain reading shows that the people of the earth believe that the Wrath of God is about to begin at the 6^th seal.

Ryan Hebbena: “The earth dwellers are diving into the rocks because it is now time for the day of recompense, for the day of repaying the world for persecuting the people of God.”

In an attempt to deal with this damning evidence that the seals cannot be the Wrath of God, Pretribbers will typically argue about the tense form of the Greek word for “has come” in Revelation 6:17.

Many Pretribbers say that since the phrase “has come” is in the Greek aorist tense form, it is in the past tense. In this case, they would prefer a translation such as the Wrath of God “has been occurring.” 

Alan Hultberg: “Pretribulationists generally want to argue [the] Day of Lord began with the first seal. And so, when people say the great day of God’s Wrath has arrived. All they’re doing is finally recognizing that they’ve been experiencing the great day of God’s Wrath.”

A growing number of Greek scholars strongly disagree with this idea, pointing out that the reason any Greek word is rendered in the past, present, or future tense, is chiefly determined by the context, not from Greek tense form. This can be seen by reviewing other instances in the Bible, including in Revelation 19:7 where the aorist indicative tense form is clearly not supposed to be translated in the past tense. It says, “The wedding of the Lamb has come.” Which is obviously not supposed to be translated, “The wedding of the Lamb has already come.”  

Charles Cooper: “Take the text at face value. Allow the text to speak. The fact that the aorist is used more than 11 times in that 6^th seal, all of a sudden, just the one occurrence of it, though, has such high and important significance. Seems to me to betray the very system you’re trying to build.”

Also, consider the actions of the people in this verse. They are hiding themselves in the rocks because they saw the very same sign Joel said would herald the Wrath of God. These people didn’t hide themselves during the first five seals. What has changed other than the celestial announcement that the Wrath of God was about to begin? 

Another line of evidence for the Prewrath position in Revelation 6 comes from the recognition that the six seals line up perfectly with the teaching of Christ during his Olivet Discourse.

Ryan Hebbena: “Revelation 6 is a revelation to a lot of people when you start to compare it to Matthew 24, the Olivet discourse. And this is a very key part of Prewrath rapturism that is actually something that was key to me really coming into the position. Juxtaposing both the flow of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 shows a lot of parallels.”

Alan Hultberg: “The opening of the seals is parallel to the elements of Jesus’ discussion in Matthew 24. So, the rider on the White Horse corresponds to false Christs. The rider on the Red Horse is war. The Black horse is famine, the Sickly horse is death. And then there’s [the] martyrs….”

Alan Kurschner: “The first three seals, these are corresponded to Jesus’ beginning birth pains. The fourth seal is correlated to the persecution of the Antichrist’s Great Tribulation. And the fifth seal is part of the Great Tribulation, too, but it’s showing the result of the persecution and as martyrdom. That’s why it’s called the fifth seal martyrs.”

In case there is any doubt we are on the right track, the next thing mentioned after the persecution in Matthew 24 is the celestial disturbances sign in the sun, moon, and stars which we now know means the Day of the Lord is about to begin.

We see this exact same sign in the 6^th seal, which all but confirms that this parallel between Matthew and the seals in Revelation 6 is correct.

David Rosenthal: “In the Book of Revelation, in exactly the right location, as you’re reading it sequentially, you’ll find a clear discussion of something happening to the sun, the moon, and the stars. This is the clear identifier indicator that God’s Wrath is about to commence. It is about to pour down on a wicked world.”

Ryan Hebbena: “Now, the reason why this is so key is because in both the Olivet discourse and the Book of Revelation, we have this sign occurring. And that which occurs in the wake of this sign is an indication of deliverance. It is immediately after the distress of those days that Jesus appears in great power and glory and gathers His elect from the four winds.”

What so few people realize is that you can see the rapture directly after the sun, moon, and stars sign in Revelation, as well. Though there is a kind of interlude after the sign and before the Wrath of God. For example, the very next thing we see is an angel saying:

 “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

Then, these angels go about sealing the 144,000 to protect them from the wrath that is about to come.

Alan Hultberg: “You get this interlude in Chapter 7. And the interlude is explicitly centered around protecting people from God’s judgment. And so, it says, ‘Hold on. Before don’t let any wind blow on the trees and things like that. But before any of that happens, we want you to seal the servants of God on their forehead.”

Directly after the 144,000 are sealed, we see the result of the rapture from the viewpoint of heaven:

 “A great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands” (Rev. 7:9b).

We are given the final proof that the Prewrath view of this timeline is correct a few verses later when the angel tells John exactly who this group is:

“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14b).

Remember, the Great Tribulation is not a 7-year period. Theologically speaking, it is the persecution that begins just after the midpoint and extends until it is “cut short” by the rapture. This phrase “out of the great tribulation” then, confirms the Prewrath timeline, and it means that the Day of the Lord will not begin until after the 6^th seal, and that the rapture occurs at some point after the midpoint of the 70^th Week of Daniel, and finally that the Church will face the persecution of the Antichrist before the rapture.

Alan Hultberg: “There is a depiction of the Church’s appearance in heaven, apparently as a means of protecting them from God’s Wrath. Between the arrival of the Great Day of God’s Wrath and the actual execution of the great day of God’s Wrath. That’s a Prewrath rapture.”

Regarding this multitude in heaven, Pretribbers would emphatically declare that this group is not the raptured Church but rather the so-called “Tribulation Saints.” But if you press them about why they must be Tribulation Saints and not the Church, they will answer with a classic circular argument—”they don’t believe the Church will be in the Great Tribulation. So, this group can’t be the Church.” There are as far as I know, no other arguments for the existence of the “Tribulation Saints” view.

You may be wondering why Pretribulationists believe that the seals in Revelation 6 have to be a part of the Day of the Lord’s wrath, especially in light of all this evidence to the contrary. Do they have some prooftext I’m not telling you about?

Not really. The most common defense Pretribulationists offer is that the seals are the Wrath of God because, “Jesus opens them.” This argument comes from Revelation 5:9 which says:

“And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.’”

They argue , essentially, that since Jesus was the only one worthy to break the seals and open the scroll, the seals as well as the scroll must be judgment, since in other places in the Bible, Jesus is said to be the only one worthy to judge the world.

The problem of course is that it doesn’t logically follow that just because Jesus is the only one worthy to break the seals and open the scroll that the seals on the scroll are judgment. This verse in Revelation 5:9 would make just as much sense in the Prewrath view in which the scroll’s contents, not the seals of the scroll, are the actual judgment.

This is often the sole argument from Pretribulationists to prove that the seals are the Wrath of God. And In my opinion, it’s rather weak, especially when you compare it to the actual explicit biblical evidence we have seen here—that the Wrath of God and the rapture will not begin until after the 7^th seal is broken.

And that brings us to something we have referenced many times in this film but have yet to fully explain, the Pretrib doctrine of imminence.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2Thess. 2: 1-4).

Alan Kurschner: “The most problematic passage in the Bible for Pretribulationists is 2^nd Thessalonians 2.”

Second Thessalonians was written by the apostle Paul, in part to refute a false teaching circulating at the time that the Thessalonians had missed the rapture and were in the Day of the Lord.  

Paul’s message to the Thessalonians was very simple. He told them not to worry, they had not missed the rapture and were, therefore, not in the Day of the Lord.

Alan Hultberg: “And so, the way he disabuses the Thessalonians from that notion is he says, ‘certain things have to happen first.’ And those things were the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness (that is the Antichrist…).”

There are two main reasons why this is a problem for the Pretribulationists.

The first is that as we have seen Pretribbers maintain that there are no events that must occur before the rapture, and here Paul blatantly says there are two events that must occur first, the rebellion (sometimes translated as apostasy) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness.

Alan Hultberg: “If Paul had taught Pretribulationism, his simplest answer would be, ‘No, the rapture hasn’t occurred yet.’ Instead of, ‘No, there are certain things that have to happen first.’ And as soon as you say, ‘There are certain things that have to happen first,’ you’ve undermined Pretribulationism. So, Pretribulationists have a very difficult time, in my opinion, making 2^nd Thessalonians to fit with their thinking.”

Charles Cooper: “2^nd Thessalonians 2 poses the greatest problem for the Pretrib position, or certainly is one of the greatest problem passages for the Pretrib position because Paul does exactly what the majority of Pretribbers say does not occur. And that is he gives us a list of [the] chronology of events specifically connected to the rapture.”

We know that Paul was teaching that these two events would occur before the Day of the Lord, in part because he uses the specific Greek work “proton or protos” which is often translated “first,” and is specifically used here to describe when these two events would take place in relationship to the Day of the Lord.

Alan Kurschner: “In the Greek. The Greek is very specific. It uses the term protos and it means before or first. So, Paul here is teaching explicitly that two events have to happen before the Day of the Lord.” 

Alan Hultberg: “Yeah. The fact that Paul says, ‘These things must happen first’ is important. He doesn’t just say, ‘These things must happen, but these must happen first.’”

The second problem for Pretribulationists is that at least one of the precursors mentioned here, the revealing of the “man of lawlessness,” is an event that takes place at the midpoint of the 7-year period.

Alan Hultberg: “And most significantly, this revealing of the man of lawlessness, which Paul describes in saying, ‘He will set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God,’ which places the revealing of the Antichrist at the midpoint. So, the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him cannot occur until after the midpoint of the 70th week.”

Take a look at this chart detailing the views of five prominent Pretribulationists about 2^nd Thessalonians 2, and you can get a sense that they have fundamentally different, often mutually exclusive ways of explaining this section of Scripture. But despite this confusion there are some Pretrib arguments about 2^nd Thessalonians 2 that are more common than others.

For example, the most common way that Pretribulationists deal with this is to say that Paul did not actually mean that these two events would happen before the Day of the Lord, rather he meant that these two events will happen during, or be features of the Day of the Lord. For example, in his commentary, David Guzik says of this problem:

“Paul will not describe events which must precede the rapture, but events that are concrete evidence of the [Day of the Lord].”

They are saying that Paul wasn’t saying these two events would come before the Day of the Lord, rather Paul was just naming things that happen during the Day of the Lord.

Despite this denial that Paul meant these things would happen before the Day of the Lord being one of the most common ways Pretribulationists deal with this problem, Pretribulationists never seem to explain why they feel it’s okay to ignore the grammar of this passage such as the Greek word proton which is sometimes translated as “first” which means that these two events must come before the Day of the Lord.

You can confirm this by looking at other places in the New Testament where the same Greek construction occurs, the same conditional word ean me paired with proton always means one thing comes before the other. [For example,]

“Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless (ean mē) it first (proton) hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?”

Another example of the same construction is in Mark 3:27,

“But no one can enter a strong man’s house to plunder his property unless (ean mē) he first (proton) ties up the strong man; then (tote) indeed the house can be plundered” (Mark 3:27).

These two examples that share the same Greek construction with 2^nd Thessalonians 2:3 confirm that the correct reading here is that before the Day of the Lord begins, two events must happen first: the rebellion and the revelation of the man of lawlessness.

Alan Kurschner: “So at the end of the day, with all these interpretations, the 800 pound gorilla is the word protos.”

Another popular way that Pretribulationists try to deal with 2^nd Thessalonians 2 relates to the word rebellion, sometimes translated as falling away or apostasy in verse three. It is one of the two things that are supposed to happen before the Day of the Lord. This is usually understood to mean a falling away from the faith. That is, Christians apostatizing (or leaving the faith of Christianity).

Recently, some Pretribulationists have put forward the idea that the word behind this word rebellion, apostacia in the Greek, means the rapture. The idea is that Paul was teaching that the rapture would happen first, and then the Man of Lawlessness would be revealed. This is usually done to preserve the all-important Pretrib doctrine of imminence—that no events can come before the rapture.

Charles Cooper: “But in 2^nd Thessalonians, they come to this text, they’ve got a real problem. They know it’s difficult. They know it poses a great problem for their position. So, what do they do? They take a word, apostasy, [and] say, ‘Aha! This word is referring to the rapture—the falling away, the taking away of the believers on the earth.”

This interpretation has two serious problems:

• The first is the complete lack of any evidence that the word apostacia can mean the rapture.
• And the second is that such an interpretation would mean that Paul is making a nonsensical and utterly useless point in this passage.

Pretribulationists claim that the apostacia can mean the rapture because the word is sometimes translated in early English Bibles like Tyndale and Geneva Bibles as the English word “depart.” They would say that if the word can mean “depart” in English, it might also be a reference to the rapture, where believers will depart the Earth.

The problem is that the word is never used that way. When the early English Bibles used the English word “depart” to define apostacia they meant it to be understood in a non-spatial sense, as in, “he departed from the faith”, or “he departed from sound doctrine.” The word is never used to describe physical departure as in, he departed from his house, or as in our case, he departed from the earth.  

Alan Kurschner: “It always means a non-physical departure, such as for example, a political rebelling or… an apostasy from the faith.”

The word is used five other times in the Bible and each time it’s used in a political or religious sense: never in a physical sense.

Even if you expanded your search to include all of the secular writings in Koine Greek, you wouldn’t find the word used in a spatial or physical sense.

Charles Cooper: “Show me a historical reference where this word is used that way. Any writing, any historical writings. Two hundred years before the New Testament. Two hundred years after [the] New Testament.”

In defense of this view, some Pretribbers will go so far as to committing the so-called “root fallacy.” What they will do is say that the root for apostacia, which is probably the Greek word aphistemi, can mean a physical departure.

This method of interpretation is universally rejected by Greek Scholars because it’s not a reliable way to determine the definition of words. To give you an example from English, the root word for “nice” in Latin actually means to be ignorant, but no one thinks that the sentence “John is nice” has anything to do with John being ignorant. Bringing up the root of apostacia is a desperate attempt to defend a particularly bad theory.

The second reason this argument makes no sense is that if the word apostacia means the rapture, then Paul’s argument to the Thessalonians is essentially that the rapture can’t happen…until the rapture happens!

Ryan Habbena: “The fatal problem with this is Paul says that these things happen before the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him which is the rapture. And so, it is illogical to say that the rapture must occur before the rapture occurs.”

Alan Kurschner: “What it’s doing is making Paul say that while the rapture can’t come before the rapture.” 

To their credit, this apostacia is the same thing as the rapture theory is openly rejected by vast majority of Pretrib scholars.

Alan Kurschner: “Even their own scholars, such as Paul Feinberg and John Walvoord, two of the most esteemed Pretribulational scholars, have completely rejected this interpretation.”

Alan Hultberg: “They haven’t even convinced all Pretribulationists of this who argue that ‘the apostasy’ (in Greek ap-os-tas-ee’-ah) means ‘The rapture; by that, Paul means the rapture.’ That’s a very difficult case to make, if not an impossible case to make.”  

Some Pretribulationists who don’t want to play the kind of games with the text we just saw, will actually agree that Paul wrote that the apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness will occur first, or before the Day of the Lord.

Take for example, John Walvoord and John MacArthur. Both men in their commentaries tell their readers that the two events, the rebellion and the revealing of the Antichrist, would occur before the Day of the Lord—which of course we agree with. But for them it’s a very odd thing to say since, in other places, they teach that the Day of the Lord is a 7-year period which is immediately preceded by the rapture. 

And since both men also agree that the “revealing of the man of lawlessness” in verse 3 is a reference to the Abomination of Desolation which happens at the midpoint, they are essentially saying that something which they know happens at the midpoint, occurs before the Day of the Lord. The obvious result is that the Day of the Lord can’t be the 7-year model that they teach in other places. The rapture must start sometime after the midpoint. This massive contradiction is not brought up or explained in either of their commentaries. 

Astute viewers have already noticed another contradiction which is “How can they teach that these two events occur before the Day of the Lord but not before the rapture?” Since, like most Pretribulationists, they teach that the Day of the Lord occurs immediately after the rapture, with no significant gap between the rapture and the Day of the Lord. In other words, since neither Walvoord or Macarthur are rapture gap theorists, in their view, if something is before the Day of the Lord it is necessarily before the rapture as well. So, why are they essentially teaching here what they certainly don’t agree with in other teachings—that there are events before the rapture? It’s not clear. As I said they don’t mention these serious contradictions in their commentaries.   

This could be called the “Forgetful Paul View.” Because in their commentaries and sermons, they will correctly teach that in verse one, the words coming and gathering are in fact references to the rapture. 

Alan Kurschner: “This is not a debate among Pretribs or Prewrathers. Pretribs and Prewrathers agree that this reference, ‘the gathering to be with Him’ in 2^nd Thessalonians 2:1 is the rapture.”

But they will go through the rest of their commentaries talking about these two precursors to the Day of the Lord as if they are only precursors to the Day of the Lord, as if they have nothing to do with the rapture. It’s as if Paul forgot to talk about the rapture, even though he said that was specifically what he was going to talk about in this section.

Alan Kurschner: “He says, ‘Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him—’ Let me just stop there. Well, Paul hasn’t made any connections here. He’s just saying, ‘Now I’m going to talk about this.’Now, isn’t it sort of odd if he says, ‘Now, I’m going to talk about the rapture and the parousia.’ And then he doesn’t mention it ever again?” Well, he actually does. He’s unpacking what it means: The Day of the Lord.”

Prewrath solves this problem by understanding that these two events that will occur before the rapture and before the Day of the Lord, and that Paul is using both concepts interchangeably here as he often does in the New Testament.

Prewrath also understands the revealing of the Antichrist in verse 3 is a reference to the Abomination of Desolation at the midpoint of the 7-year period.

They also see the falling away (or rebellion) in verse three as a reference to the “falling away” that Jesus mentions in association with the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24.

In fact, this clear and consistent connection between Matthew 24 and 2^nd Thessalonians 2 is a really important point!

Alan Kurschner: “A fundamental problem of the way that Pretribulational interpreters interpret the apostle Paul is they don’t recognize that Paul is getting his teaching from Jesus.”

For example, just look at the similarities. In Matthew 24, before the rapture in verse 31, what does Jesus say must come first? You guessed it! A falling away, and the abomination of desolation, and its only after those events occur that you can you expect to see the sign of the impending Day of the Lord in verse 29, and the rapture in verses 30 and 31 just before it begins.

Jesus’ teaching on the end times is a perfect mirror to Paul’s in terms of the timing of events which is probably why Paul said that he got this doctrine about the rapture, quote: “from the Lord.”

Alan Kurschner: “How do we know that the apostle Paul received his teachings from the Olivet Discourse, from Jesus’ Olivet Discourse? Well, we know this, we know this because there are at least 30 parallels between Paul’s teaching in 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians and between Olivet Discourses. Thirty cohesive links between their teachings.”

It’s not just Prewrathers that see the connection between the 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians and Matthew 24. Just check the margins of your favorite Bible. Ever since cross-references have been invented, they have been linking these two passages; it’s only the Pretribulationists who can’t accept that these passages are parallel to one another.

Alan Kurschner: “If you’re a Pretribulationist, just…, lay your presuppositions aside for a moment and just read 2^nd Thessalonians 2 without your traditions and see what it says.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS