Category: Bible Prophecy Talk

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

The second Pretrib Problem is related to the Olivet Discourse which is the name for the teaching about the end times that Jesus gave on the Mount of Olives recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Christians throughout the ages have believed this passage to be speaking of the signs leading up to the rapture. In other words, they believed that the signs that Jesus tells His disciples about in the Olivet Discourse are signs that will happen before the rapture and that the rapture itself is pictured in Matthew 24:30-31 which says:

“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

There are lots of reasons to believe that the rapture is being described in Matthew 24 starting with the clear parallels between the events described in Matthew 24 and the events described in other rapture passages such as 1st Thessalonians 4:16-17 which says:

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”

Ryan Habbena: “Jesus’ description of His coming in Matthew 24:29-31 parallels, ideally, Paul’s description of the rapture in 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17.  And Paul confirms this through many linguistic connections in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.”  

Alan Hultberg: “There are tons of parallels. Everything from, you know, the angels and the trumpet, and the gathering of God’s elect. But also, you know, the thief in the night imagery, the drunkenness versus sobriety imagery…”

The problem with this for the Pretribber is that if the rapture is in view in verses 30 and 31, it leads to the conclusion that there must be precursors, or signs before the rapture because in context there are lots of signs that happen before the events in verses 30 and 31.

For example, a straightforward reading of this passage means that before the rapture can take place, the following events will happen first:

• A number of smaller signs Jesus calls birth pains
• The Abomination of Desolation when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the temple at the midpoint
• A great persecution like none that has ever been seen in history
• A “falling away” or an apostasy from the faith
• And an ominous sign in the sun, moon, and stars followed immediately by the rapture

As we have seen, the idea of precursors before the rapture is unacceptable with  Pretribbers because it would mean that the rapture is not imminent. In other words, if the rapture is what is being referred to in verses 30 and 31 of Matthew 24, it would mean that there are things that will happen first, that the rapture can’t occur at any moment, and most significantly, it would mean that the Church will face the Antichrist’s persecution before the rapture.

After the Pretrib view was proposed in the mid-1800s, all these problems in the Olivet Discourse were immediately recognized, and a new sort of “anti-Matthew 24 movement” began. At first, they essentially taught people not to pay attention to this section of Scripture at all. They said that it was only meant for those left behind such as Jews or the so-called “Tribulation Saints.”

Arguments for this would begin by saying things like Matthew is a particularly Jewish gospel, and because of the Jewish focus of the book of Matthew, this section was not meant for the Church.

Thankfully, this particular line of argumentation has been mostly rejected in recent years. Even Pretribulational scholars have come to realize its flaws.

For example, they point out that Matthew might be the most church-focused gospel of them all.  It’s the only one that mentions the Great Commission and the section on church discipline in chapter 18. In fact, Matthew is the only gospel that uses the word “church” at all.

David Rosenthal: “If you’re going to make the argument that Matthew chapter 24 is not for believers, are you going to make the same argument two chapters later when Jesus institutes the ordinance of the communion? It’s a real problem for Pretribulationists in that regard.”

Pretribulationists did come up with one interpretation of this Matthew 24 that seemed to stick. In the mid-1800s, they began to teach that verse 31 was not the rapture at all, but some other event that occurred at the end of the 7-year period. Most often, they said it referred to the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 19 where Jesus descends to battle with the armies of the Antichrist.

Charles Cooper:  “Historically, classical Pretribbers did not/would not allow the rapture to be put in the proximity of Matthew 24 and 25. They argued that the rapture is nowhere to be seen there, that any mention of a coming of Christ in that passage had…it refers to Armageddon.”

There are lots problems with this view. For instance, many of the parallels that we see with the Thessalonian letters and Matthew 24 just don’t apply to Armageddon. The events in Matthew 24: 29-31 and the events at Armageddon are fundamentally different. In Matthew, there is a rescue of God’s people from the earth to heaven, but in Armageddon Jesus returns from heaven to destroy the wicked people on the earth.

But the biggest problem with the Armageddon view, and the one Pretrib scholars in the last few years have been scrambling to solve, comes from the obvious contradictions this view creates with the second half of the Olivet Discourse.

Ryan Habbena: “So, in the latter part of Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 we are introduced to many parables of Jesus concerning the day and hour and readiness for His coming. And from a Pretribulational perspective, this proves to be a problem in many different ways. Regardless of the way it’s interpreted—which are various.”

To set the stage it’s important to remember a basic outline of the Olivet Discourse.

The disciples ask Jesus what the signs of His coming will be. Then Jesus gives them a fairly large list of signs, ending with the coming itself (i.e. the rapture in verses 30 and 31).

From that point on, after verse 31 and going all the way through chapter 25, Jesus tells His disciples various parables about how important it is for them to watch for the signs of His return; signs He’d just got done telling them about.

It is in this last section where Pretribbers have so many problems to solve, because when they changed the meaning of verses 30 and 31 from the rapture to Armageddon, they changed the meaning of these parables as well, and these parables just don’t make sense if verses 30 and 31 are anything but the rapture.

For example, in one of these parables it says that “no one knows the day or the hour” of Jesus’ coming.  And while many layman Pretribbers will quote this verse in reference to the rapture, they do this ignorantly. The Pretrib scholars know that if they have changed verse 31 to be about Armageddon then they must make this not knowing the day or the hour to be about Armageddon. After all, according to them Jesus wasn’t talking about the rapture at any point in this chapter. And in context, whatever verses 30-31 are referring to, is what the parables that follow them have to be about. So, they’re stuck having to defend the idea that no one will know the day or the hour of Armageddon.

The problem here is that we know from several other verses in Scripture that the day Armageddon occurs will be exactly seven years and 30 days after the covenant is made by the Antichrist and exactly 1,290 days after the Abomination of Desolation at the midpoint. In other words, since it seems very likely people will at least know when the Abomination of Desolation at the midpoint occurs since Jesus says people should flee when they see it, all anyone would have to do is calculate the days from that event to arrive at the day Armageddon will occur.

Commentaries from Pretribbers either don’t mention this problem at all, or admit it’s a problem but offer no solutions. John Macarthur is a good example of the latter. In his commentary he says:

“Nevertheless, even with all those indisputable signs and precisely designated periods, the exact day and hour will not be known by any human beings, not even Tribulation believers, in advance. Although the Lord gives no reason for their not knowing.”

David Guzik says something similar in his commentary,

“In this, there is a dilemma. How can the day of Jesus’ coming be both completely unknown, and at the same time be known to the day according to Daniel 12:11?”

Another problem caused by interpreting verse 31 as anything other than the rapture is that, twice in these parables, Jesus says that “one will be taken and one will be left.” If this is talking about the rapture, then it flows quite naturally from the gathering in the clouds, in verse 31 and it makes perfect sense in context.

But because of the Pretribulational teaching that verses 30 and 31 are about Armageddon, Pretribbers must interpret this one being taken here as either Armageddon, or the Sheep and Goat judgment. Basically they must see this being taken as a bad thing for un-saved people. They must interpret it as a wicked person being taken to be judged, instead of a righteous person being taken to their eternal reward. It’s a full reversal from historical Christianity on this point.

In defense of this, they will point to the parable in the previous verses about Noah in which Jesus talked about how the flood came and took people away. They say that since the word sometimes translated took in that passage was about being taken for judgment (the flood came and took the unbelievers away), that is how the word taken in verses 40 and 41 should be understood—that the one was taken for judgment, not rescue.

Ryan Habbena: “The truth is the Greek actually precludes this from being a possibility. Two different words are actually being used. And it…the one taken is to receive to oneself, to receive warmly. In fact, it’s the same word Jesus uses in the departing discourse in John which [says], “I will not leave you, but I will, as orphans, but I will come again, and I will receive you unto Myself. ”

Alan Kurschner: “‘And if I go to make a place ready for you, I will come again and take you (paralambano). Take you to be with me so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.’ So here, Jesus uses the term paralambano. Guess what? Every Pretrib interpreter believes that John 14, this John 14 passage when Jesus says, ‘I will take you to be with Me’ is referring to the rapture.”

Another argument for this one being taken being a reference to them being taken in the rapture and not being taken to judgment, is that in the Ten Virgins parable a few verses later, which is on the exact same subject, which we know because it ends with the exact same warning: “Watch because you do know the day or the hour,” it is only the wise virgins that are taken not the foolish ones. In other words, the purpose of Jesus’ warning to watch because you don’t know the day or the hour, is so that you can be a part of those that are taken not left.

Interpreting verse 31 as Armageddon is also logically incompatible with next parable in which Jesus says the wicked people of the world will be carefree and unaware before His coming. He says, “they will be marrying and being given in marriage, and eating and drinking up until the very day of His coming.”

This creates a huge problem since, according to the Pretrib interpretation this would mean that wicked are relatively carefree right up until the day of the battle of Armageddon, even though Armageddon takes place at the very end of the 7-year period after the trumpet and bowl judgment have been poured out.

To put this in context, at this time every living thing in the sea will be dead. All the fresh water in the world will be undrinkable. The sun will be so hot that no one can bear it. Everyone will have been plagued with terrible sores, and there have been five solid months of torment from demonic, scorpion-like beings directly from the pit of hell. I could go on, but I think it’s safe to say people will have noticed that the Wrath of God has started, and that they would NOT be living carefree lives right up until the day the battle of Armageddon begins. There are precious few Pretrib commentaries that even attempt to justify this idea. Again, the most common tactic is to not mention the problem at all.

But Pretribulational scholars have recognized the various problems that interpreting verses 30 and 31 as Armageddon has caused. And in the last decade or so, there have been two competing theories from them to answer their critics on these issues—one from Dr. Craig Blaising of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and one from Dr John Hart of Moody Bible Institute.

While Blaising’s theory gained popularity from being featured in Zondervan’s Three Views on the Rapture book, it’s a somewhat convoluted argument, and in many ways it represents an entirely new way to teach Pretribulationism. As a result, it seems to have had less acceptance among Pretribulationists than Hart’s theory. Though, it should be noted that in both cases these theories rely on the same underlying prooftext—but…more on that later.

John Hart wrote a paper in 2007 that simply agreed with the historical church and the Prewrath rapture proponents that all of the parables after verse 36 are, in fact, talking about the rapture and not Armageddon—thus, avoiding the various contradictions we have been talking about.

The unique thing about Hart’s view is that he maintains that the first part of the Olivet Discourse, including verse 30 and 31, is still a reference to Armageddon as Pretribbers have taught since the 1800s. So, he is essentially saying the first half of the Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with the second half—that Jesus was teaching his followers about the signs leading up to Armageddon until verse 35 and then, for some reason, He reversed the order of events and began to teach parables about the rapture in verse 36.

Both Hart and Blaising’s theories rely on the argument that in verse 36, the Greek phrase peri de (which is often translated “now concerning”) represents a transition to an entirely new topic. In other words, they argue that this Greek term gives them an excuse to decouple the first half of the Olivet discourse from the second.

Alan Hultberg: “Hart argues, and Blazing does the same, that the transitional phrase in Greek in verse 36, peri de, which means ‘now concerning’ or something along those lines, is intended to distinguish or to mark the change from answering one question to the other.”

However, since “peri de” basically means the same thing that the English phrase “now concerning” does it can mean “now concerning something entirely different,” but it can also mean “now concerning another aspect of the thing that was just discussed.” It’s used both ways multiple times in the New Testament.

Charles Cooper: “In Matthew, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the author is going to a new entirely different subject. Rather, it means that he may be discussing another aspect of this central focus at hand, which is exactly what’s happening in Matthew 24.”

The peri de line in verse 36 starts off, “Now concerning the day or the hour.” So, this is about the specific timing of something. Hart wants us to believe this is the first line on a totally new subject, but the problem is that this line is obviously a continuation of the question about the timing of the events begun in the parable of the Fig Tree just before this.

The parable of the Fig Tree teaches that the followers of Christ should be able to determine the general time of His coming by the signs Jesus just described in Matthew 24:4-31, and that His disciples could know His coming was near—by looking for the signs in the same way that they could know summer is near—by observing the leaves on a fig tree.

So with the Fig Tree parable, Jesus says that we will be able know the general time, but in the next line He says concerning (or peri de) “the day or the hour”i.e., the specific time of My coming—“no one will know.“

Ryan Habbena: “It is a qualification then because we do not know the exact day or hour. So, we know the season, but we do not know the day or hour. So, these two things complement one another, and they must be taken together.”

Another criticism of Hart’s view revolves around the term parousia which is translated as “coming.” Since these new views of Hart and Blaising separate Matthew 24 beginning at verse 36 from the previous section, it would mean the question the disciples asked about the parousia in verse 3 is different from the answers about the parousia given by Jesus in verses 37 and 39.

Alan Hultberg: “They have to say that what Jesus refers to as the coming of the son of man is different from the coming of the son of the man in Matthew 36-41. That’s very difficult to maintain exegetically. There’s no evidence within the text, not even the transitional phrase peri de that suggests he is shifting from one coming to some other coming. This is clear because when the disciples asked the question, they say, ‘What is the sign of your coming?’ And Jesus just uses that same language, His parousia in both parts of the text. He doesn’t give any indication that He’s switching topics.”

The bottom line is that the old Pretrib view which has the parables at the end of the Olivet Discourse talking about Armageddon instead of the rapture is a brand new argument with multiple contradictions—and Pretribbers who know, know it. But the supposed fixes for this major problem, proposed in the last decade or so, which revolve around the idea that the first and second halves of the Olivet Discourse have nothing to do with one another is an even worse argument, and now hopefully some of you know it.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

The first Pretrib Problem on our list is called the “Precursor Problem,” and in order to understand it we need to first talk a little about the so-called Day of the Lord.  

Alan Hultberg: “The Day of the Lord is an Old Testament concept for when God shows up in history and finally, in the end, to judge his enemies and sometimes to vindicate or rescue his people.”

David Rosenthal: “It really means, the time of God’s Wrath in an ultimate sense.  When God will pour out His judgment, His vengeance on a wicked world.”

Charles Cooper: “Scripture explicitly declares that the Saints will not experience the eschatological Wrath of God—theWrath of God that is typically associated with what we call the Day of the Lord. Therefore, the question in my opinion—really, the only question is, ‘When does the Wrath of God begin?’”

As mentioned earlier, Pretribulationists teach that the entire 7-year period is the Wrath of God, and that the rapture will occur just before it begins. Importantly, they also believe that the rapture is imminent meaning that it can happen at any moment, and there are no prophetic events that must come before the rapture.   

However, there are at least four events explicitly stated to come before the Day of the Lord in Scripture:

Ryan Habbena:  “Now, this is a very big problem for Pretribulational imminence because as Pretribulational imminence is defined, there are to be no precursors, no necessary precursors before the coming of the Day of the Lord or the coming of the rapture.  But we have explicit declarations in the Bible that we have several precursors that have to come before the great and terrible Day of the Lord.”

Alan Kurschner: “Pretribulational teachers admit themselves that if you can find one event that will occur before the rapture, then it contradicts imminence theology and hence, it contradicts Pretribulational theology.”

Alan Hultberg: “Well, definitely the fact that the Scriptures tell us that there are going to be precursors [prior] to the Day of the Lord is an argument against Pretribulationism.” 

To clarify, based on where Pretrib teachers have traditionally placed the rapture, if these four biblically prophesied events occur before the Day of the Lord, it means there are, in fact, events that must come before the rapture, the very thing Pretribbers say cannot occur.

We will discuss several of the precursors in other sections, but I want to focus on one in particular here found in the book of Joel.

“The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes” (Joel 2:31).

David Rosenthal: “Many of the Old Testament prophets wrote about this time, the Day of the Lord, the time of God’s Wrath. And almost every time you read about it in the Old Testament, you’re going to find it connected with something that I term “cosmic disturbance.” Something happens to the sun, the moon, and the stars.”

Alan Hultberg: “Isaiah 13 [and] other passages in the Old Testament present these cosmic disturbances that will be signs that the Day of the Lord has arrived.”

Alan Kurschner: “Joel explicitly states it’s going to happen before, not during, before the Day of the Lord.”

This is so important, because there are two prophecies in the New Testament about when this particular celestial sign takes place. The first, in Matthew, makes it clear that the sun, moon, and star sign occurs “immediately after the tribulation of those days” and everyone agrees that “those days,” in context, is a reference to the persecution that begins directly after the abomination of desolation, which theologians call the Great Tribulation.

So, if you compare Joel 2:31 which says that this sign occurs before the Day of the Lord with the passage we just read in Matthew that says the cosmic sign comes after the great tribulation which begins at the midpoint, you have explicit evidence that the Day of the Lord is not seven years long, but rather that it begins at some unknown point after the middle of the 70^th week.

We see this confirmed in Revelation chapter 6 where it says that this celestial disturbance sign occurs at the so-called sixth seal, and even most Pretribulationists will agree that the sixth seal in Revelation takes place after the midpoint of the 7-year period.

We will talk more about Revelation 6 and the seals in another section, but for now let’s see how Pretribbers try to explain some of the things we have brought up so far.

Surprisingly, few Pretib scholars have addressed the Precursor Problem at all, but of the few that have, they present three possible solutions.

Dr. Richard Mayhue, a very accomplished and well-respected Pretribulational scholar, chose to simply agree that there were precursors to the Day of the Lord connected to the midpoint, and that the Day of the Lord must, therefore, start after those precursors after the midpoint.  

Charles Cooper: “But I’m inclined to follow more along lines of Dr. Richard Mayhue who argues that the typical long-term historical aspect or thinking regarding the beginning of the Day of the Lord probably needs to be re-thought among Pretribbers…”

As you may have noticed this timeline of Mayhue’s is pretty much exactly what the Prewrathers teach, with one very important exception. Mayhue places the rapture the same place that Pretribbers always have, just beforethe 7-year period starts, whereas Prewrathers place the rapture just before the Day of the Lord starts, at some unknown point after the midpoint.

Mayhue does this because he is still a Pretribulationist, and so he can’t compromise on the idea of imminence. Therefore, he can’t allow these events to occur before the rapture, as it would destroy the idea of an any moment rapture. So, while he allows for these events to occur before the Day of the Lord, he moves the rapture well before the Day of the Lord so there are still no events that occur before it.

Prewrathers have come to call this method of dealing with the Precursor Problem the “Gap theory.”

Basically, this theory places a significant gap of time between the rapture and the Day of the Lord. In Dr. Mayhue’s view, the gap is over three-and-a-half years long, but there are slightly different takes on the gap theory out there.

For example, Pretribulationists like Arnold Fruchtenbaum who recognize various aspects of the Precursor Problem but still want to maintain the traditional Pretrib view that the Day of the Lord is seven years long, have to do something a little more radical. They assert that the rapture happens at some undefined, but significant, amount of time before the 7-year period even begins.

It has to be a fairly long gap to accommodate all four precursors, though there has been no attempt to define exactly how long of a gap it will be.

Both manifestations of the gap theory have the same fundamental problem which is that Jesus teaches that the rapture and the beginning of the Wrath of God are back-to-back events that occur on the same day. And if that is true, there can be no gap between the rapture and the Day of the Lord.

One of the reasons people on all sides of the debate have historically placed the rapture just prior to the Day of the Lord, with no gap, is because of Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse, which says:

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” 

And in Luke’s account the parable of Lot is added to this:

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it beon the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

Ryan Habbena: “They are joined; they are back to back. And we see that pattern throughout Scripture. Like with Noah, it was on the same day. And Noah entered the ark that day the floods came. Furthermore, with Lot.  It was on the same day that he exited, that the wrath came, and fire came upon Sodom. Really the rapture triggers the Day of the Lord because now it is time for retribution, for vindication.”

This idea that the righteous would be rescued on the same day that the Day of the Lordbegan is probably why the New Testament writers consistently spoke of the Day of the Lord as good for believers, but bad for everyone else.

It is the day we will receive our rewards and be with Christ, but it’s also the day God’s Wrath will be poured out on the world.

This is why Peter said we should look for and hasten the Day of the Lord.

It’s why Jesus said when we see the sign that the Day of the Lord is about to occur, we should lift up our heads because our redemption draws nigh.

This idea that the rapture happens on the same day that the Day of the Lord’s wrath begins is very conservative theology, believed from the earliest days of the Church. It’s actually still believed by the majority of Pretribbers.

It is only those who have realized the implications of the Precursor Problem who have begun to seek out alternative theologies about the timing of the Day of the Lord in relationship to the rapture.

The third way Pretribulationists have attempted to deal with the Precursor Problem is to claim that there are two “Days of the Lord”—one that is seven years long, and another twenty-four hour “Day of the Lord” associated with Armageddon.

This theory allows them to have all the precursors take place before their new twenty-four-hour Day of the Lord, and because they place the rapture immediately prior to the beginning of the seven yearlong version of the Day of the Lord, they can maintain Pretrib imminence that no prophesied events occur before the rapture.

There are a lot of problems with this argument, but the main one is that, as we have seen, the celestial disturbance precursor, which is said to occur before the Day of the Lord in Joel 2:31, takes places at the 6^th seal in Revelation 6:12-14.

This is significant because even though there are some minor disagreements about the timing of the first few seals in relationship to the 7-year period, the 6^th seal is almost universally believed to be after the midpoint. So, that means this theory would require a third Day of the Lord to be added to their list because the 6^th seal is unquestionably after the beginning of the 7-year period, and at the very least five months before the Armageddon! We know this because of the 5^th trumpet, which is a part of the Day of the Lord, is said to be five months long.

We will learn much more about the 6^th seal and how it relates to the Day of the Lord in another section of this film, but needless to say, this third option isn’t a very popular one among Pretribbers.

In their defense, the Precursor Problem doesn’t leave Pretribbers with many good options, and so the most common way they deal with it is to avoid explaining these problems to their fellow Pretribbers in the first place. 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS