Return to GodandCountryRadio/Articles
The Pretribulation Rapture Theory
Revisited
Pastor Bradford Winship
A critique of the article
“Why a Pretribulational Rapture” by
Richard L. Mayhue
posted in the Master’s Seminary Journal
(Fall 2002)
Despite the objections of the
pretribulationists, the “pretribulation rapture” is a theory.
It is a theory because the Bible never states directly that believers
will be taken off the earth before the seven-year tribulation.
The doctrine of the pretribulation rapture is deduced by inference.
Seasoned students of the Bible understand this fact, but there are a vast
number of untaught Christians in the American church who believe there are
Biblical passages that state plainly a pretribulation timing of the rapture.
These believers become exasperated when challenged to find the texts that
teach a pretribulation rapture. If
they continue to defend the pretribulation rapture, they do so by learning the
pretribulation system of inferences.
Throughout this article I will
be referring to the two alternatives to pretribulationism--the midtribulation
and the posttribulation views.
Since the arguments for these two positions are almost identical, these will be
referred to together as mid/posttribulationism.
Pretribulationists often assume that posttribulationism always teaches
there is no time between the gathering of the saints and Armageddon.
The posttribulationists that I have encountered understand that there may
be a time gap between (1) the gathering of the saints, (2) the judgments upon
the world, and (3) the final descent and establishment of the earthly Kingdom.
For the posttribulationist, the 45 days of Daniel 12:11-13 may be an
allusion to this time gap. Marv
Rosenthal’s “Pre-Wrath Rapture” theory has believers raptured off the earth in
the sixth year. The rapture is then followed by a quick outpouring of the
trumpet and bowl judgments. mid-tribulationists
have a similar belief, but they see a full 3 ½ years of judgment for those left
behind. For posttribulationists and
midtribulationists, the time gap may be hour, days, months or even year; but
they are assured that the rapture occurs toward the end of the tribulation
because (1) Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24:29-31 that after the Great Tribulation
the elect will be gathered, (2) Revelation 6 describes believers on earth and
martyred during the opening of the seal judgments, and (3) the apostle Paul’s
silence concerning a pretribulation rapture.
The main eschatological argument is whether believers will be absent
during the tribulation (pretribulationism) or whether believers will be present
(mid/posttribulationism)
The arguments for and against
pre, mid, and posttribulationism have been exhausted, and there is no need to
rehash the arguments. The most
important reason for this article is to address an overlooked issue that is
rarely developed fully in writings devoted to this subject--The Doctrine of
Epistemology.
Every student of the Bible has
experienced debating Eschatology only to end up with neither side being swayed.
This seems odd given what we believe about the perspicuity of
Scripture. After years of
unsuccessfully persuading my opponent with exegesis, I was compelled to dig
deeper into the psyche beneath my opponent’s exegesis.
The obvious dawned on me; the real issue was that each of us was
operating on a different understanding of how truth is derived from Scripture.
The problem was not one of exegesis but epistemology--how knowledge is
acquired.
Realizing this, I would never again debate eschatology in the same way.
The pretribulationists are
comfortable with deriving their doctrine from inferences, and theologial
systems. It is of little consequence
to them that there is not a single text directly stating that the church will be
raptured out before the seven-year Tribulation.
Contextual clues are considered a sufficient basis for establishing the
timing of the rapture in reference to the final week of Daniel (Daniel 9).
Biblical statements such as, “not ordained unto wrath,” “like a thief in
the night,” “upon this people,” are considered indications of a pretribulation
rapture. The role of the
Pretribulationist is to be a detective--connecting the dots to arrive at the
otherwise veiled timing of the rapture.
The controversy is not about a
lack of scholarship on the part of one position.
Many defenders of the Pretribulation position are serious Bible scholars.
The issue is about core beliefs regarding the role of human reason in
hermeneutics. In fact, those
with great scholarship might be more prone to misuse human reason.
Some of the greatest scholars have been Roman Catholic apologists.
Their logic may be flawless, but their error is in believing that it is
necessary to use human logic to extrapolate Biblical text to fit what they
believe is the overall theology of Scripture.
In his first edition of “The
Rapture Question,” Dr. John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, a
prominent defender of the pretribulation rapture, admitted that “neither
Posttribulationism nor Pretribulationism is an explicit teaching of Scripture.”[1]
Nevertheless Dr. Walvoord, as other pretribulationists, see no problem in
developing eschatological doctrine by way of inference.
A growing number in the church are not
content with such questionable methods. They
seek direct textual support rather than theological lines of reasoning.
It is their commitment to “Sola Scripture” that prevents them from
holding dogmatically to a position that lacks direct Biblical pronouncements.
For this reason, after a run of 150 years, the pretribulation rapture
theory is crumbling, and the church is returning to the historic
premillennialism of the early church fathers.
Of great concern is not only the
rapture position itself, but the ramifications of building doctrine by means of
inference. I personally became
alarmed over pretribulationism after in-depth studies into the hermeneutical
methods used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Romanists.
Their errors are rooted in a belief that doctrines can be deduced by
contextual clues, even in the absence of clear Biblical statements.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary, Prayers to the Saints, Purgatory, etc
. . . are all deduced by inference.
The scary reality is that the pretribulation rapture position has no more
Biblical support than many of these false doctrines.
The Evangelical/Fundamentalists of our generation are not immune from the
same fleshly tendency to resort to human speculation and to “go beyond” the
Scriptures (2 John 9). Because
the Scriptures are silent, or at least unclear, concerning the timing of the
rapture of the church in regard to the apocalypse, the Biblical integrity of
ministries that hold dogmatically to a pretribulational interpretation can be
called into question.
To answer this concern,
pretribulationist will argue that deducing doctrine through Biblical inferences
is a proper hermeneutic because this is the means by which the church has
arrived at many fundamentals of the faith.
For example, the word “pretribulation rapture” may not be found in the
Bible, but neither is the word “Trinity.”
Pretribulationists might have a valid point if the doctrine of the
Trinity were merely deduced by finding the names of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit in the same sentence.
But the Trinity is based on direct statements in Scripture that the
Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.
The same clarity is found in all the major fundamentals of the faith.
The hermeneutics behind the pretribulation Rapture Position is in a
completely different category.
Apply the pretribulation methodology to any other doctrine and one will
arrive at heresy.
This response to the Master’s
Seminary article is intended for the veteran Christian, and as I said earlier,
there is little need to rehash the arguments for and against the pretribulation
rapture. Nevertheless, I still run
into pretribulationist pastors and seminarians who have never wrestled with the
biblical texts challenging their position.
To provoke their thinking, I offer a critique of the
“seven major lines of reasoning” put
forth as the rationale for pretribulationism.
In 2002, the Master’s Seminary
Journal presented a defense of the pretribulation rapture position.
The article was entitled “Why A
Pretribulational Rapture.” The
introduction states that “seven
major lines of reasoning produce the conclusion that a pretribulational rapture
best fits the biblical evidence and raises the fewest difficulties.”
The opening statement to Dr.
Mayhue’s article is a telling admission.
The pretribulation rapture position is not based on any didactic
statement from Paul, but is based upon “lines
of reasoning.” The author states
that “it will not be the weight of any one reason that makes pretribulationism
so compelling, but rather the combined force of all the lines of reasoning.”
This line of reasoning opens the door to a typical fallacy used in
argumentation, that is, using multiple bad arguments to muddy the waters and
then, hopefully, the quantity of arguments alone will appear as one good
argument.
The first consideration is to
recognize that the burden of proof falls on the pretribulationist to show that
the Apostle Paul introduced a new event for believers--a secret rapture before
the seven-year Tribulation.
The default position is mid/posttribulationism.
Christ clearly stated that “immediately
after the tribulation . . . He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet
and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the
sky to the other” (Matthew
24:29-31). Any new teaching from
Paul about a different event would not be disclosed through hints or allusions.
An event revealed that is different from Christ’s words must be of such
clarity that believers in the church would surely know the words of Jesus in the
Olivet Discourse do not apply to them.
I believe pretribulationists so fail to meet this threshold that they
should regard their teaching as theory and, at the very least, change their
public teaching from the church “will be” raptured out before the tribulation,
to the church “may be” raptured out
before the tribulation.
Furthermore, a
mid/posttribulation rapture of the church is the default position of the early
church fathers. pretribulationism is
a position developed in the mid-19th century.
The 2nd century Didache, which is the earliest known church manual, reads
mid/posttribulation:
“And then the world-deceiver shall appear as a son of God; and shall work
signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hand; and he shall
do unholy things, which have never been since the world began.
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many
shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved
by the Curse Himself. And then shall
the sign of the truth appear; first a sign of a rift in the heaven, then a sign
of a voice of a trumpet, and thirdly a resurrection of the dead; yet not of all,
but as it was said; the Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.
Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.”
(The Didache, Section 15)
The
Master’s Seminary article begins by stating that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1
Corinthians 15:51-52 are the texts in which Paul introduces this special rapture
of the church before the tribulation--an event which Jesus did not address.
The article admits that neither text
“contains an explicit time indicator.”
Paul does not state that the rapture that he refers to in 1 Thessalonians
4:16-17 or 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is a different event from the gathering of the
elect taught by Jesus, nor does Paul state directly that the coming he speaks of
is before the tribulation. If
anything, the reader would assume that
Paul is referring to the same event Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:31 - - a
gathering of believers after the tribulation.
Matthew 24:29-31
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
”For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and
remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen
asleep. For the Lord Himself will
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the
trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in
the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the
Lord.”
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
”Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be
raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”
For the following reasons, Paul
is referring to the same mid/posttribulation coming that Jesus spoke of in
Matthew 24:
1.
Paul uses the same descriptive words as Jesus: “coming of the Lord,”
“angels,” “trumpets,” “clouds.”
2.
The point of 1 Thessalonians 4 is not to teach a new coming, but to
assure believers that those Christians who have died will still partake in the
glorious procession of our Lord.
3.
Paul teaches in 2 Thessalonians that believers will be given relief “when
the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming
fire” (2 Thessalonians 1:7).
This language describes the glorious second coming, not a secret rapture.
4.
In 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, the believers are concerned that the
“Day of the Lord has come.”
It is evident that the early church understood the meaning of the “Day of
the Lord” as described in Isaiah’s apocalypse (Isaiah 24-26).
At this juncture, if Paul were teaching a pretribulation rapture, Paul
would have mostly likely replied, “Of
course you are not in the Day of the Lord; don’t you remember that I taught you
that the church would be raptured out before the Day of the Lord?”
Instead Paul replies that the Thessalonicans cannot be experiencing the
day of the Lord because the apostasy has not taken place and the anti-christ has
not yet been revealed. Paul is
following Matthew 24:15 where Jesus teaches that believers are to look for the
abomination of desolation as the sign that the day of the Lord is upon them.
5.
In 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, Paul further tells the believers that the
anti-christ will be defeated at Christ’s coming (2:8).
The believers would not have considered the “coming of Christ” as an
event separate from the rapture of the saints.
Paul earlier states in 2:1 that “our
gathering” and “the coming” are one event:
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2
“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our gathering together to Him,
that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either
by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day
of the Lord has come.”
At this point pretribulationists
claim that Paul’s failure to mention the rapture of the church in 2
Thessalonians 2 is an argument from silence.
Yes, it certainly is an argument from silence!
Paul’s failure to mention the timing of the rapture of the church before
the Tribulation in 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, and 2 Thessalonians 2 is
proof that there is no pretribulation rapture of the church.
The fact that Paul did not teach the timing of rapture of the church,
when he had opportunity to do so, speaks volumes.
The silence is deafening.
Given the natural reading of
Paul’s teaching, the whole pretribulation rapture position should be relegated
to speculative theology. But Dr.
Mayhue claims that Paul must be introducing a new event in 1 Thessalonians 4
because Paul uses the word “harpazo”—“caught
up,” and Christ did not use this word in Matthew 24:31.
Even though Christ spoke of His people being “gathered” by the
angels, and Christ spoke of those “taken”
and those “left behind” (Matthew 24:40), pretribulationists believe Paul’s use
of a different word establishes a new and different gathering of the saints.
Is this how Christians are to deduce Biblical doctrine?
Is it not the cults who deduce new doctrine by dissecting minor
variations in words?
Undoubtedly, no believer in the
Dr. Mayhue’s Reasons for the Rapture:
1. The Church Is Not Mentioned
in Revelation 6-18 as Being on Earth
As in all New Testament letters,
the word church appears predominately
in the introduction to the letters.
This is especially true in Revelation where the first three chapters
describe the book of the Revelation as addressed to the seven churches of
The book of Revelation strives
to makes the point that believers are on earth during the tribulation
(Revelation 6:9-11,
The fact that Revelation is
written to the churches also belies the pretribulation position.
Later in the article, Dr. Mayhue has to address the valid question “Why
is Revelation written to the churches, if the church will not experience the
tribulation of Revelation 6-19?”
2. The Rapture is Rendered
Inconsequential if it is Posttribulational
The error here is the “law of
the excluded middle.” The opponent’s
position is pigeon holed to allow for only one outcome.
The pretribulationists claim that a
posttribulation rapture would not leave any mortal believers on earth to
populate the millennium. Since all
believers will be raptured and glorified at the end of the tribulation, there
will be no mortals left on earth to bear children and thus fulfill the
millennial prophecies of Isaiah.
The truth is that we know very
little about how glorified believers and mortals will interact in the
Millennium. Believers will come to
life and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4, Ezekiel
37:12); and we also read there will be mortals on earth--believers and
unbelievers (Isaiah 65:20, Revelation 20:7-8).
There are many unseen ways these prophecies can be fulfilled.
We should never determine our eschatology by speculation about how the
dead are raised, but we should limit ourselves to direct Biblical prophecies
about the timing of the rapture.
In any case, this pretribulation
argument is eliminated by the midtribulation position or even posttribulation
views that allow for a substantial time gap between the rapture and the descent.
If one wants to speculate on those entering the millennium, it may
include those Jews who repent when the Lord descends on the
Dr. Mayhue also argues that a
posttribulation rapture leaves no time for the Judgment Seat of Christ and the
Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
However, basing the timing of the rapture on some block of time that we perceive
is necessary fails to take into account God’s power to differ the passing of
time between heaven and earth. (John
6:21; Joshua 10:13; Matthew 22:29; 2 Peter 3:8)
The strongest language
describing the rapture of the church in the book of the Revelation is after the
6th seal. It is then that
John sees a multitude in heaven from every nation standing before the throne.
John asks, “Where have these come from?”
“These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation” (Revelation
3. The Epistles Contain No
Preparatory Warnings of an Impending Tribulation for Church-Age Believers
Only those who have superimposed
on the New Testament the Pretribulation rapture of the church would make the
claim that the Epistles contain no
“preparatory warnings.”
Jesus Christ warned of the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation.
Paul confirms the same warnings in 2 Thessalonians 2 when he tells the
church to look for the apostasy and the man of lawlessness whom the Lord will
slay at “His coming.”
The entire book of the Revelation is written to prepare believers for the
end times. The call to
martyrdom and suffering is throughout the New Testament
(Philippians
4. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Demands a Pretribulation Rapture
Dr. Mayhue writes,
“The
Thessalonians are actually grieving because they fear their loved ones have
missed the rapture. Only a
pretribulational rapture accounts for this grief.”
Mid/posstribulationists fail to see how only a pretribulation rapture
accounts for the Thessalonian’s grief.
Is it not possible that the Thessalonians were merely wondering if
deceased Christians would partake in the glories of the return?
This pretribulationist argument is not careful exegesis.
The text does not tell us why the Thessalonians were grieving, nor that
they were grieving at all.
Paul writes to give them more assurance about the future of Christians who have
died. He writes “so that you will
not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.”
It is at this point that the
author introduces the joyous expectation argument.
If the church has to endure any of the tribulation, then the church would
not be joyously anticipating the coming of Christ.
The mid/posttribulationists’ response is to point out that even though
Jesus Christ taught a posttribulation coming in in Matthew 24,
it did not prevent Him from speaking
about believers maintaining an eagerly expectation of His coming, especially
when the troublesome signs of the time appear.
Luke
“But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your
heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
The joy of the return of Christ
is not affected by the prophecies of hardship, whether that be hardships in the
church age that foreshadow the apocalypse, or the very apocalypse itself.
As a pastor, I extend great liberty to believers who hold to the
pretribulation rapture theory unless they hold to pretribulationism because they
believe God would never allow church age believers to suffer the war, hunger and
martyrdom described by the seven seal judgments (Revelation 6).
One may hold to pretribulationism for any other reason, but to believe
the church is not called to suffer is a spiritual malady.
We have been called to suffer tribulation in this world, and the “joyous
expectation argument” is an offense to all those Christians who have suffered
terribly as they wait for the return of Christ.
Philippians 1:29
”For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him,
but also to suffer for His sake.”
2 Corinthians 7:4
”Great is my confidence in you; great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled
with comfort; I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction”
5. John 14:1-3 parallels 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18
The argument here is that Jesus
promised to the church a home in heaven, not a return to earth to live in the
Millennium. Dr. Mayhue’s article
reads, “a posttribulational rapture
demands that the saints meet Christ in the air and immediately descend to earth
without experiencing what the Lord promised in John 14.”
The mid/posttribulationist retort is that there is really no
inconsistency between mid/posttribulationism and Jesus’ promise that
“where I am, there you may be also”
(John 14:3) or “so we shall always be with
the Lord” (1 Thessalonians
The saints will reign with
Christ in the Millennium (Revelation 20:4).
The millennium is a transitional period before the new Heaven and new
Earth (Revelation 21).
Some pretribulationists believe the church will reign with Christ on earth in
the millennium; others pretribulationist believe the church will be in heaven
during the millennium. Yet how
can we “always be with the Lord” if we are not with Him on earth during His
millennial reign? The
pretribulationists are unable to be consistent in this matter.
The timing of the rapture of the church should not be deduced from these
speculations about our proximity to Jesus after the resurrection.
An additional problem
pretribulationisst have is in claiming that Jesus’ words to his disciples in the
upper room (John 14:1-3) apply to the church and the rapture of the church; but
Jesus’ words to the disciples a few days earlier on the Mount of Olives (Matthew
24) do not apply to the church, but to the disciples who are representing
national Israel. The text
provides no basis for the reader to make such distinctions.
6. The Nature of Events at
Christ’s Posttribulational Coming Differs from That of the Rapture
It
is here that the pretribulationists look for distinctions between the words of
Christ and the words of Paul in order to claim that Paul is introducing a
gathering of the saints different from Christ’s words in Matthew 24. Again the
method of deducing doctrine through clues belies the whole Pretribulation
rapture position. An
event as new and different as the pretribulation rapture would not have been
revealed cryptically. It is
hard to imagine that Paul expected the Thessalonian believers to assume he was
introducing something new simply by his use of words that varied slightly from
Jesus’ words.
As mentioned earlier, the
language between Jesus and Paul is actually more similar than different.
Both Jesus and Paul speak of the “the
coming of the Lord, “a great trumpet,” “angels of God” “clouds of the sky,” etc.
(Matthew 24:29-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if Paul is using slightly
different words, he did so not to define a new event, but to reveal additional
aspects of the Matthew 24:31 coming of Christ.
The pretribulation system is
built upon making a distinction between Jesus’ words
“gather the elect” and Paul’s words
“caught up.” The
pretribulation system imposes on the text the idea that the “gathering
of the elect” (Matthew 24:31) does not include a transformation and
translation of the saints to heaven, but a mortal gathering of Jews to meet
Jesus in
A careful look at the
disinctions listed by Mayhue are alarming.
Dr. Mayhue adds words to the text.
This is a mark of careless theology.
He writes in his first distinction,
“At the rapture, Christ comes in the air and returns to heaven (1 Thessalonians
In his second distinction Mayhue
claims, “At the rapture, Christ gathers
His own (1 Thessalonians
The remaining 6 distinctions
listed by Dr. Mayhue are filled with pretribulationist suppositions imposed on
the text. The proponents of
pretribulationism are so blinded by their system that they add defining words to
the text. They assume these
additional words render the proper meaning of the text as these additional words
help the texts fit the pretribulational system.
This is circular reasoning.
7. Revelation
In this argument, the Revelation
Revelation 3:10
”Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you
from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world,
to test those who dwell on the earth.”
The first problem with this
interpretation is that only the
Many of those Pretribulationist
who hold to the “
The main refutation to Dr.
Mayhue’s argument is that the promise to the
In his article, Professor Mayhue
writes extensively on the meaning of the word
ek (out of) in Revelation 3:10.
The argument is meaningless because it operates on the unproven
assumption that the
A truth that should not be
overlooked is that throughout the book of the Revelation there is not one text
that states plainly a point in time when the saints are gathered in the air as
described by Jesus in Matthew 24:31 and by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.
Even in Revelation 19, where we read that the marriage of the Lamb has
arrived, there is no definite description of the gathering of believers.
This silence and/or ambiguity should be a lesson to students of the
Bible. Maybe Jesus’ words, ”no man knows the day or the hour” extends not only to a date, but to
the timing of the Lord’s coming in reference to the seven-year Tribulation.
Is it any wonder theologians cannot come to an agreement on the timing of
the rapture in reference to the Tribulation?
Not even the martyred tribulation saints in heaven know when Jesus will
return to save His people for they cry out, “How
long, O Lord?” (Revelation
6:10-11). By the way,
Revelation 6:10-11 refutes the pretribulation argument that the pretribulation
rapture is imminent, but the Second Coming can be determined by signs.
It is my conviction that the
church cannot definitely determine the moment the church will be raptured off
the earth in reference to the seven-year Tribulation--the 70th week
of Daniel. The Scriptural texts are not
definitive in this matter, and therefore, we do not have the Biblical authority
to be dogmatic. Where the Scriptures
do not stipulate, do not speculate. Of
course, this position may not appeal to the masses in popular Christianity.
People want a date; they want a system; they want to know if they will
see the anti-christ. But as
ministers of the Gospel we must give the sheep what they need, not what they
want; and what they need is to be prepared for the end-times.
This may include apocalyptic signs and suffering.
Because of the words of Jesus in
Matthew 24:29-31, the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the words of John
in Revelation 6:9-11, I lean toward the position believers will most likely go
through some part of the tribulation and yet being raptured before the heavenly
judgments. Nevertheless,
I refuse to be dogmatic about this
position and fall into the same error as the diehard
pre, mid, or posttribulationists.
These are theories, and these theories should never have become a basis
for membership, pulpit supply, ministerial qualification, or ecclesiastical
unity. I have some thoughts on
Biblical reasons why God allowed the church in
There is a movement away from
the pretribulation position among the Evangelical/Fundamental churches in
Additional arguments:
There are a few additional
arguments put forth by pretribulationists which Dr. Mayhue did not include in
his article. Given the
popularity of these additional arguments, I am surprised they were not included,
but Dr. Mayhue may have believed these arguments have no Scriptural integrity.
Pretribulationists do not agree on all elements of the system.
1. Imminence
I have found that “imminence” is
the most popular argument for the pretribulation rapture.
The Pretribulationist reasoning is that the rapture of the church is
imminent--meaning it can take place at any time.
If the rapture of the church takes place any time after the beginning of
the apocalyptic signs, then the rapture cannot be imminent.
Jesus taught imminence, “no man
knows the day or the hour,” and
“the coming of the Son of man will be like the days of Noah.”(Matthew
24:36-38). Therefore, there must be
an imminent, secret rapture of the church before the apocalyptic signs and the
glorious coming of Christ.
The problem with this argument
is that all of the language of imminence is used by Christ to explain the Second
Coming following the Tribulation.
Matthew 24:31-37
“And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will
gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the
other. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already
become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near,
right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until
all these things take place. Heaven
and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and
hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”
Apparently the
pretribulationists have wrongly defined imminence.
In Matthew 24 Jesus taught that signs can preceed Jesus’ coming even
though “no one can know the day or the
hour.” Jesus goes on to describe
His coming after Tribulation as a “thief
in the night” even after teaching that signs proceed this coming. (Matthew
24:40-44)
Paul, in using the phrase “you
yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief
in the night,” is referring back to the events Jesus described in Matthew 24
and to Jesus’ teaching concerning the imminence of the second coming.
Paul’s point is not that believers will be unaware or surprised at the
coming of Christ, but that only unbelievers will see Christ as coming as
a thief in the night.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-3
“Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of
anything to be written to you. For
you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a
thief in the night. While they are
saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like
labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.”
When I first studied prophecy as
a new Christian, the paradox in Matthew
24 confused me, even as it confuses many others.
How can Matthew 24:33 (“Recognize
that He is near”) be true in view of
Matthew 24:39; 24:44 (“He will come
in an hour when you do not think He will”)? Are there signs to look
for, or are there not signs to look for?
If there are signs to look for, then how can Jesus come as a thief in the
night? This paradox is a
source of endless false teaching on the second coming of Christ.
End-time preachers will often focus on one aspect while neglecting the
other. They fail to see how Jesus
taught signs and imminence both work together.
Pretribulationist preachers will
fight tooth and nail to hold on to the popular slogan that Jesus could come at
any moment. But the imminence
spoken of in Scripture is just as compelling.
When the prophetic clock of Daniel starts ticking, the events will unfold
in quick succession. “Be on the alert” (Matthew 24:42).
“When they say peace and safety
sudden destruction will come upon them” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).
Dr. Mayhue may have left off the
pretribulationist imminence argument because a careful exegesis shows that the
rapture and the second coming are both described as imminent, and this fact
supports a mid/posttribulation interpretation.
2. The Restrainer is
Removed
2 Thessalonians 2:7
“For the mystery of lawlessness is
already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of
the way.”
Here is a perfect example of
reading a system into the text.
The pretribulationist argument is that 2 Thessalonians 2:7 is teaching
that the Holy Spirit is taken off the earth and when the Holy Spirit leaves, so
does the church. However, the text
merely states that the One who restrains, most likely the Holy Spirit, will be
taken out of the way so that the anti-christ can rise to power.
The point is that the Spirit of God is actively restraining the
lawlessness and the lawless one in the earth.
The only reason the anti-christ can arise is because God permits him to
arise. Imposing the rapture of the
church on this text is dishonest and again exposes the weak foundation of the
pretribulation position.
Furthermore, many in the
Dispensational system teach that the removal of the Holy Spirit signals the end
of the Church Age, and the promise of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.
Those saved in the Tribulation are not part of the church.
These tribulation saints will receive the Spirit only sporadically as did
the prophets in the Old Testament.
This does great violence to the New Testament doctrines of salvation, and
this issue will be taken up in the next refutation of pretribulation arguments
3. The End of the Church Age
and a Return to the Covenant with
Pretribulationism is linked to
Dispensationalism. In
Dispensationalism, the church is considered a parentheses in God’s plan.
After God finishes the program of the church He will return to His
covenant with
First, even if one holds to a
Dispensational system, it does not follow that the church has to be off the
earth when God returns to work with national
Second, it is doubtful that the
church age will ever end. Paul
teaches in Ephesians that the church is the body of Christ and that God has made
the “two into one new man, thus
establishing peace and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the
cross.” (Ephesians 2:15-16).
This text and many others appear to teach that for Jews to be saved, even
the 144,000 of Revelation chapter 7, they must become part of the church, the
body of Christ. They must be
grafted into God’s tree (Romans
One does not need to be a
full-fledged Covenant theologian, or an Amillennialist to object to unscriptural
elements in Dispensationalism. There
is an historical premillennial position that takes the best Scriptural elements
from both Covenant and Dispensational theology.