Eight blows to Imminence

By R.g.Wallace
Blow #1
Peter must grow old and die.
John 21:18-19
"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk
wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and
someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to {go."} Now this He
said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this,
He said to him, "Follow Me!"
How imminent could the Lord's return be for Peter who was told by Jesus Himself that he
would "grow old" and die a martyr's death?
Would Peter be expecting an "any moment" return of Jesus next year, the year after, in five
years?
Did Jesus teach that He could come back at any moment and tell Peter at the same time,
that he would grow old? I think not.
How can one justify the act of the Holy Spirit, communicating through the apostle John the
fact of this "prophecy" that Peter would grow old, and at the same time communicate
through others that Jesus could come back "at any moment?"
2 Peter 1:13-15
And I consider it right, as long as I am in this {earthly} dwelling, to stir you up by way of
reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my {earthly} dwelling is imminent, as also our
Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my
departure you may be able to call these things to mind.
Here is some imminence for us. Peter had grown old. The year is approximately 67 AD and
Peter knows that any day now, he could be captured and led forth to die. What Peter also
knows is that Jesus would NOT come back before that happens.
In fact, Peter even mentions the coming of the Lord as he remembers being an eyewitness
to His "Majesty" that will be manifested at the Day of the Lord return of Jesus, when He
comes "in power and great glory."
But He does not mention imminence. Instead he tells them to keep in mind the basic truths
of Christianity that they have learned so that AFTER he dies, they will be able to use them
for their own comfort and encouragement as the expectantly look for the "future" coming of
Jesus.
No, Peter does not teach imminence in chapter one.
In chapter two, Peter makes it clear that as the church age continues, there WILL ARISE
false teachers who will introduce destructive heresies.
Yes, there will continue to be an advance of evil just as Paul said, "evil men and impostors
will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived," (2 Tim. 3:13). And through
it all, Peter reminds them that God knows how to deliver the godly from temptation and
encourages them to remember the words spoken previously by the holy prophets and the
commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles," (2 Pet. 3:2).
Peter does not teach imminence in chapter two. How could he? He was never taught
imminence by Jesus.
In chapter three, Peter says an astonishing thing. He says that there will come a time that
can be designated as "the last days." Days considerably distant from the initial promise
given by Jesus and repeated by the apostles, that Jesus was coming back. Thus, as "time"
has gone by, the mockers will be motivated to say, "where is the promise of His coming?"
Yes, so much time will have gone by that the mockers will have a "hay day" of ridicule
concerning the promise of Christ's return. So Peter reminds them that God's time table is
not based on man's perceptions of days and years. He says that God is not "slow" as man
views slowness, but that He is actually "patient," waiting so that mankind might have a
maximum amount of time to come to a change of mind.
And then he repeats the well known warning, "the day of the Lord will come like a thief" to
indicate that many will be unprepared for its arrival and the return of Jesus.
The phrase, "come like a thief," occurs only 5 times and always refers to the return of Jesus
at the arrival of the Day of the Lord (1Thes. 5:2, 4; 2Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; Rev. 16:15). The
use of this term originated based on the parable Jesus taught at Matt. 24:43-44
"But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the
thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to
be broken into. "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour
when you do not expect it."
This exhortation and warning follows upon His teaching that when you see the "signs" of the
great tribulation, you will know that His coming is right at the door, just like we know that
summer is near when we see leaves on the trees (Luke 21:29).
But He immediately tells us that no one knows the day or hour of His coming. In other
words, we can know the "season" of His coming, when He will be "right at the door," but we
cannot know the exact day of His coming. Thus the exhortation for watchfulness so we
might be prepared when God brings that arrival of Jesus "in His own timing" (1 Tim. 6:15).
Jesus did not teach imminence here. He taught that the events of the tribulation would
precede His coming and that once those events transpire, we should know that He is right
at the door and we should "be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is
coming," (Mat. 24:42).
But our watchfulness should not be out of fear or sorrow, but out of great joy and
expectation, knowing that at His arrival He will take us to Himself so that then we shall ever
be with the Lord. That is why Paul calls this "the blessed hope" (Lit: the HAPPY confidence,
Titus 2:13)).
He will come like a thief, only to those who are unprepared. But for the believer, walking in
fellowship with God (walking in the light) they "are not in darkness that the day should
overtake you like a thief," (1 Thes. 5:5). Accordingly, Paul immediately follows that up with
an exhortation to all believers including himself, to "not sleep as others do, but let us be
alert and balanced," (2 Thes. 5:6).
The exhortation then is to watchfulness and preparedness, not in view of an "any moment"
coming of Jesus, but in view of the DANGER of not being ready when "the signs" come on
the scene.
All the words used to encourage our watchfulness communicate the attitude of
"expectation" and the strong emotion of longing, in view of His promised arrival, not in view
of an "any moment" arrival.
No, Jesus did not teach imminence at Matthew 24. Instead, He taught that specific events
had to occur first. Peter knew and understood this. And he even knew that the Lord would
not come during his lifetime.
Thus, he exhorts the recipients of his letter, to be diligent to maintain holy conduct and
godliness (2 Pet. 3:11) and to be found in Him, in peace, spotless and blameless," (v.14) so
that just like John warns, "we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame
at His coming," (1 John 2:28).
2Pet. 3:17-18
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away
by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the
grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now
and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Peter did not teach imminence in chapter three. He taught the need for growth, preparation
and watchfulness,
"looking for and promoting the coming of the day of God,"
(2Peter 3:12, BFT).
Blow #2
Paul must witness in Rome.
Acts 23:11
But on the night {immediately} following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take
courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must
witness at Rome also."
Unless, He adds, I decide to come back FIRST - then, of course, you won't get to Rome - - -
Such a little idea packed into this verse. Paul is told that he IS going to witness at Rome.
That means it is BEFORE the Lord returns.
Jesus did not say when this would come about, but the promise stands on its own merits
and for any one who was looking for an "any moment" rapture, the promise would certainly
destroy that idea.
Now while Paul is "waiting" to get to Rome, what does he teach others about the "imminent"
return of Jesus? Maybe he will have to keep it "hush-hush" since now, he cannot depend on
it himself. Maybe he never had that idea in the first place. After all, he is the one who wrote
2 Thes. 2:3, which says that the day of the Lord cannot come until the man of lawlessness
is revealed.
The same basic promise is repeated at Acts 27:24 where we find -
Acts 27:23-26
"For this very night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood before
me, saying, 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has
granted you all those who are sailing with you.' "Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for
I believe God, that it will turn out exactly as I have been told. But we must run aground on
a certain island."
But of course, the rapture might occur while they are stuck on the island and make the
"promise" of God a lie. And how long were they on the island? Acts 26:11, "And at the end
of 3 months, we set sail on an Alexandrian ship."
Three months for Paul to be expecting an "any moment" rapture. Well, no, because God had
told Paul that he had to go to Rome. What then of all the believers throughout the rest of
the world? Where is the reality of their hope in an "any moment" rapture? Were they to still
look for such a thing? Indeed, would God the Holy Spirit be communicating to others that
they should be looking for an "any moment" rapture, while at the same time having
revealed to Paul that there would not be one?
Of course not. God does not give conflicting information to His people.
Blow #3
John will have additional public ministry beyond writing the book of the Revelation.
Revelation 10:8-11,
And the voice which I heard from heaven, {I heard} again speaking with me, and saying,
"Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the
land."
And I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, "Take it,
and eat it; and it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as
honey."
And I took the little book out of the angel's hand and ate it, and it was in my mouth sweet
as honey; and when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter.
And they said to me, "You must prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and
tongues and kings."
Revelation chapter 10 is a parenthetical chapter that deals personally with John and
specifically with His ministry beyond the writing of the book of The Revelation.
This is a personal promise to John that he will prophesy "again" which suggests a ministry
beyond the scope of the present vision he is seeing.
Accordingly, the Lord's return could not be imminent to John, nor would the Holy Spirit
teach Imminency through him.
He may not know exactly when and where his future ministry is, but he should know that
the Lord will not be coming back first.
Blow #4
A specific departure from the faith and the revealing of the man of Lawlessness must
precede the return of Jesus.
2Thes. 2:1-3
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our
gathering together to Him, that you may 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. Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the
apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction."
This blow connects only if one will recognize the proper correlation of terms established
within the context.
The subject is "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him."
It should be clear that Paul views these two events as taking place at the same time. He
makes the same connection at 1 Thes. 4:15-17, where we find in v. 15, "we who remain
until the COMING OF THE LORD" and at v. 17, "we shall be caught up together in the clouds
for a MEETING with the Lord in the air."
In chapter 5, Paul then makes the connection of this "coming" and "meeting" (gathering)
with the term "Day of the Lord" at verse 2.
In verses 3-11, Paul then clearly indicates that the believer who is "awake," "alert" and
"sober" (balanced) will NOT be surprised by the arrival of the Day of the Lord which will
catch others totally off guard.
But in so doing, he also makes it perfectly clear that the church will be present on the earth
when the Day of the Lord arrives. In fact, he clearly makes this arrival of the Day of the
Lord refer to the same event mentioned just a few verses before as "the coming of the
Lord" and "a meeting with the Lord in the air."
At 2 Thes. 2:1-3, he makes the exact same correlation.
Here, he addresses the concern of the believers that they Day of the Lord has already
arrived. Accordingly, they have been given the impression by false teachings, that not only
has "the coming" arrived, but the "gathering" taught to them in Paul's first letter, has also
occurred.
So, CONCERNING this "coming" and "gathering," Paul says that they should not be
disturbed about the idea that the Day of the Lord has come and pay no attention to the
false teachings they have heard. He then very clearly tells them that this "coming of the
Lord" and "our gathering together to Him," known AS the Day of the Lord, WILL NOT come
until the apostasy and the man of lawlessness is revealed. That means that the man of
lawlessness, the "beast" of Revelation and the one so often designated as the antichrist,
WILL come on the scene of human history and be revealed as the great rebel against God
BEFORE the rapture of the church.
And since there is usually little dispute that the man of lawlessness is revealed as the
oppressive beast of The Revelation, AT the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week and not before it,
it should be clear that such a revealing will precede the "coming of the Lord."
This issue revolves around whether or not one has the personal honesty and objectivity to
make the proper identification of the three terms involved as referring to the same event.
Blow #5
The Great Commission:
Jesus said that he church would accomplish a world-wide gospel proclamation before He
comes back.
Matthew 28:18-20,
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in
heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
This is the general mandate for worldwide evangelism and probably in itself, does not really
mitigate against imminence. However, in association with Acts 1:8, there appears to be
another one of those "things" which MUST be carried out before Jesus can or will come
back.
"but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of
the earth."
Now we know that the "church" was scattered away from Judea as a result of the
persecution that arose in connection with Stephen (Acts 8:1) and began ministering
throughout the regions of Samaria. This took place about 36 AD and certainly fulfills the
words of Jesus at Acts 1:8.
But the question needs to be asked. Could Jesus have returned BEFORE that migration of
the church to Samaria? And if so, what then is the purpose and reliability of the words of
Jesus at Acts 1:8?
Furthermore, Jesus said, "and to the uttermost parts of the earth," which did not take place
for several years later. Paul informs us that it did indeed, happen as he writes in about 59
AD concerning the Romans, "your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world,"
(Rom. 1:8).
And in about 63 AD, "the hope of the gospel . . which has been proclaimed in all creation
under heaven," (Col. 1:23). And at Col. 1:6, "the gospel, which has come to you, just as in
all the world also."
And let us remember what was said of the apostles by the Jews of Thessalonica in about 54
AD, "these men who have upset the world, have come here also," (Acts 17:6).
But BEFORE these men took the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth,
(say, between 30 and 50 AD) if indeed the above passages indicate that to be the case,
could Jesus have come back? And if those passages do not indicate such a spread of the
gospel, has Acts 1:8 then, not been fulfilled till later, if indeed, at all? And if that be the
case, could Jesus have come back "anytime" since His very own words would still be
unfulfilled?
Then we have Matthew 10:16-23 with special focus on Verse 23,
"But whenever they persecute in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall
not finish with the cities of Israel UNTIL the Son of Man comes."
This is similar to Acts 1:8 in that it indicates a certain accomplishment BEFORE the return of
Jesus. If at a certain point in time, they are only part way through reaching "the cities of
Israel," are they to be looking for an "any moment" return of Jesus? I think not.
Let's back up to Verse 18,
"And you shall even be brought before governors and kings for my Name's sake, as a
testimony to them and to the Gentiles."
In view of this, can they have been looking for an "any moment" return of Jesus during the
6+ years when they were ministering in Judea?
No, there needs to be a "worldwide" ministry of the church BEFORE Jesus will come back.
Indeed, Jesus again tells us at Matthew 24:14,
"and this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in the whole world for a witness to all
the nations, and then the end shall come."
Of course, once again, this requires having a certain understanding of the context.
The understanding that "the end" correlates with Matthew 10:23 where Jesus relates it to
"the Son of Man comes," and with Matthew 24:29, "immediately after the tribulation of
those days."
And the understanding that the "coming" of Jesus that is in view here is the ONLY coming of
Jesus that He Himself taught about. But that is another subject. However, I suggest that all
the passages in the New Testament refer to the one and only coming of Jesus when He will
come in the clouds of the sky and gather His elect from the earth and NOT his "later"
descent to the earth at Armageddon which is only referenced at Rev. 19:11.
Anyway, I trust that it can be seen to be unlikely, in view of the promises and commands
for a worldwide evangelistic outreach, that the Christians of the early church did not believe
in an "any moment" return of Jesus. Expectancy does not require imminence.
Blow #6
The predicted progress of historical trends which must take place, as the "beginning" of
birth pains, militates against the idea of Imminency.
Mankind has always been preoccupied with the future, and of course, the disciples of Jesus
were no exception. During the week prior to the crucifixion in 30 AD, Jesus frequented the
temple in Jerusalem every day. And it was on one of these days, the 12th of the month
Nisan, that it appears as though He actually baited the curiosity of the disciples by speaking
of a future destruction of the temple with very strong language.
The occasion, according to Mt. 24:1 and Luke 21:5, was the disciple's enamorment with the
temple structure. The "bait" then, appears to be recorded at Mt.24:2 and Luke 21:6.
Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, there shall surely not be left one stone
upon another, which will not be torn down.
The disciples respond with several questions, one of which was, "when shall these things
be." Ie, when will this destruction of the temple occur? Matthew chooses not to record
Christ's answer to this question, but simply deals with the time period from the cross until
that destruction in 70 AD, via verses 5-6.
Luke, on the other hand, records the answer that Jesus gave and also gives us a general
time-frame for understanding it.
In addition, they asked what would be the sign of His coming, the very coming He had been
teaching them about for 3 1/2 years.
The answers of Jesus, recorded for us in Mt. 24 and Luke 21, give us an outline for the
history of the church up until the gathering of the elect (church age believers) out from this
world at the arrival of the Day of the LORD which is the event that triggers the end of the
age.
Matthew 24:4
The possibility of deception requires specific information so that the church might be
oriented to the progress of history and not be distracted from her evangelistic purpose.
If the church, or more specifically, individual believers, get too distracted and discouraged
at the progress of evil in the world, they will lose sight of the true objective for their
continued sojourn here on the earth (1 Peter 2:9).
Thus, we have the Olivet Discourse, wherein Jesus orients us to the historical trends that
will occur during the church age, leading up to His return at the Day of the LORD.
As this is studied, it is imperative to properly harmonize the three accounts that we have in
the synoptic gospels. And as they unfold it will be clear that the progress is viewed from 30
AD, as an uninterrupted history of the church, until Matthew 24:29-31, when Jesus returns
in association with the Day of the LORD signs and gathers His elect from the world.
Jesus breaks down the historical trends into three periods.
1. Those before 70 AD.
2. Those between 70 AD and the great tribulation.
3. And those during the great tribulation.
The very fact that He so presents this information indicates the intent to communicate
watchfulness for the "signs" of His coming and not to advocate an "any moment" return. In
fact, His wording DEMANDS a delay of that return until at least the fall of Jerusalem.
CHURCH AGE TRENDS - General trends both before and after 70 AD:
Mt. 24:5, For many will come in My name, saying, I am the Christ,
(Lk. 21:8, I am He, and, The time is at hand) and will deceive many.
(do not go after them. LK)
(For the mystery of lawlessness is already working - 2 Th.2:7)
Verse 6
And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not disturbed, for it
must happen, but it is not yet the end.

(Lk. 21:9 And when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be alarmed; for these things
must happen first, but the end is not immediate.)
These "wars and rumors" have been occurring since 30 AD, and are to be viewed as general
trends without placing any specific significance upon them. In fact, Jesus calls them "the
beginning of birth pains at verse 8. "Beginning birth pains" are those intermittent pushes
and shoves which indicate that a pregnancy is moving toward its "end." However, before
that "end" can occur, there must be the "breaking of the water" and the final birth pains
which are the body's actions to bring that baby into the world and "end" the pregnancy.
Imminency is excluded by the fact that Jesus says these things MUST happen and yet that
is not the end. Now, once the beginning birth pains occur, the idea of Imminency would in
that regard be present. But that is the whole idea. There is no Imminency UNTIL the birth
process begins with beginning birth pains.
The "pregnancy" is God's plan to establish the Messiah's reign on the earth via His return at
the Day of the Lord.
The beginning birth pains are those historical trends which progress from Messiah's first
advent until the revelation of the beast, the man of lawlessness at the midpoint of Daniel's
70th week.
The final birth pains take place during the oppressive reign of the beast which is called the
tribulation, the great one.
The end of the "pregnancy" is when Jesus returns at the Day of the Lord and administrates
divine wrath upon the world in preparation for establishing His 1000 year earthly kingdom.
At verse 6, Jesus said, "the end is not yet." This clarifies that when the "wars and rumors"
occur, the oriented Christian should not be deceived into thinking that it portends the end of
the age. To explain why it is not yet the end, Jesus amplifies at Mat. 24:7 and Luke 21:10-
11. Here, He describes trends that take place on a much larger scale than the ones just
mentioned - -
For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom - - .
There are two things in this passage which tell us that these "larger scale" trends are those
which will occur after AD 70.
1. The idea of "kingdom against kingdom" conflicts does not describe the conflicts that took
place within the Roman Empire prior to 70 AD.
2. At Luke 21:12, the phrase, "but before all these things."
Here Jesus backs up in His discourse in order to describe the events leading up to and
culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
By saying, "before all these things," Jesus is placing the following information before the
"larger scale" trends just described.
And so, chronologically, these events should be viewed first.
As we approach this study, a very important point needs to be recognized in order to
properly correlate the language Jesus uses as He tells of the events that will take place.
Jesus taught about two different times of persecution and two different times of crisis for
Jerusalem. He uses similarity of language to describe both, and we must be careful to make
the separation between the two situations or else we will miss the true intent of His
teaching.
When Jesus talks about the persecution between 30-70 AD, he uses language that is very
similar to what He uses to describe the persecution of the great tribulation. But by careful
analysis, the distinction between the two periods can be preserved. The same principle
applies to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the oppression by the beast in the
great tribulation.
SPECIFIC PERSECUTION BETWEEN 30-70 AD
(based on Luke 21:12, "But before all these things")
Verses 12-19,
"they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues
and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors because of My name. It will provide
you occasion for a testimony. Therefore establish in your hearts, not to practice to defend
yourselves; for I will give you speech and wisdom which all of your opponents will be unable
to resist or refute. But you will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives
and friends, and they will kill some from among you, and you will be hated by all because of
My name. Yet a hair from your head will not perish. By your endurance you will possess
your lives."
Mark also records this information at Mark 13:9-13 and it is best to take that passage as
paralleling Luke 21:12-19. It should further be recognized that Matthew records this same
teaching much earlier than the Olivet discourse at Mat. 10:16-23.
But at Mat. 10:23, Jesus takes the persecution and the gospel proclamation beyond the
immediate time frame of the apostolic era and applies it to the church age in general
without making any reference to the fall of Jerusalem 40 years after His resurrection.
"You shall not finish with the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."
This simply confirms the idea that there is no "interruption" of the historical progress of the
church until Jesus returns at the Day of the LORD.
It also confirms that Jesus did not teach an "any moment" return, but expected there to be
a "complete" ministry within Israel first.
Mark 13:9-10
Now keep yourselves alert; for they will deliver you to courts and you will be flogged in
synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony
to them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all the nations.
The world-wide proclamation of the gospel was fulfilled by the apostles (at least in the
context of the Roman Empire) prior to 70 AD according to language that we find at
Colossians 1:6, 23. But it also has great significance for the period of time prior to the Day
of the LORD. For there shall be, indeed, needs to be a blanket of gospel truth announced to
Israel both locally, in Palestine, as well as world-wide, in order to sow the seed that will
sprout in the 144,000 Jews who are converted just after the Day of the LORD arrives, (Rev.
7:1-8).
There also needs to be a maximum gospel proclamation to the world as a whole, "before"
the return of Jesus to provide a "final warning" as it were, to all peoples so that, whether
before or after the Day of the Lord, "whoever calls upon the name of the LORD, shall be
saved." Joel 2:32
Matthew 24:14,
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed
in the whole world for a witness to all the nations,
and then the end shall come.
Indeed, the ministry of "the church" will never be complete either to the world or to Israel
until Jesus returns. Mat. 10:16-23
Verse 23,
". . . you shall not finish with the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes."
Blow #7
The prediction of a future destruction of Jerusalem denies the doctrine of imminence (Luke
21:8-24).
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM - 70 AD
Having recognized the 30-70 AD time context of Luke 21:12-19, it should be clear that
Jesus picks up at verses 20-24 with the siege of Jerusalem by the armies of Rome. This
event actually becomes the point of contact and overlap between AD 70 and the future
oppression of the beast during the great tribulation. However, that point of contact and
overlap is NOT chronological
And once again, we must be very careful in recognizing the precision in the words of Jesus
to distinguish between these two events, and at the same time realize that He used
similarity of language to describe both. Luke 21:20-22,
Now when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is
near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the
midst of the city depart, and those who are in the country, do not enter it; because these
are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
All things fulfilled does not refer to the "entire" plan of God for Jerusalem, but specifically,
that which involves a world-wide dispersion. A world-wide dispersion is not what happens in
the yet future oppression by the beast, nor what happens when the nations surround
Jerusalem during the Armageddon campaign (Zechariah 12:1-5).
This prophecy of Jesus specifically fulfills OT passages that deal with the destruction of the
city and the dispersion of the people. Leviticus 26:27; Deuteronomy 28:49-68
It deals with the national discipline that God will administer upon the Jewish people because
of the rejection of their Messiah. Matthew 21:33-46; 23:37-39
That is why the term "days of vengeance" is used at Luke 21:22.
Luke 21:23-24,
Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babies in those days; for there will
be great calamity upon the land, and wrath to THIS people, and they will fall by the edge of
the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled under
foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
This is exactly what Gabriel communicated to Daniel in the famous "70 weeks" prophecy.
Daniel 9:26,
(And after the 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,) And the people of the
prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a
flood; and to the end there will be war; (it is) a decree of desolations.
The Roman army under Titus besieged the city in 70 AD on the 14th of the month Nisan
until its fall, 134 days later on the 8th of Elul. This was prophesied by Daniel as taking place
after the cutting off of Messiah. The cutting off of Messiah must be understood from the
context of Isaiah 53:8 -
He was cut off from the land of the living,
for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
This of course refers to the provision of salvation through the sin sacrifice of the Messiah,
the details of which do not come under the scope of this work.
The "prince who is to come" is the little horn of Daniel 7:7-22 and refers to the future
dictator of a ten-nation confederacy with its political roots in ancient Rome. This man will
make a 7 year covenant of peace and religious toleration (M.E.P.T.A.) with the peoples of
Palestine (the many) and will then break it 3 1/2 years later (Daniel 9:27). But the people
of that "end times" prince refers to the Romans, who in 70 AD destroyed the city and the
sanctuary; the people from whom this prince descended, not to those who are associated
with him when he comes on the scene.
Then after 70 AD, until the end (end times) there will be war, just as Jesus said at Matthew
24:6, and a decree of desolations which includes the famines and earthquakes of Matthew
24:7.
And the plagues mentioned at Luke 21:11.
It should be clear that there could not be any "any moment" rapture because this prophecy
about the fall of Jerusalem had to take place first. And although the disciples did not know
the year of that destruction, they certainly could understand that Jesus was not coming
back first. However, we should understand that they were probably unaware of the details
of His coming, even though He taught so extensively on it, simply because it needed
clarification and the ministry of the Spirit to "bring to remembrance" what they had been
taught (John 16:12). And although Jesus gave them the "empowering" of the Spirit before
His ascension (20:22; Luke 24:45), it still did not provide them with the orientation they
needed, for the ask the question of Acts 1:6,
"Lord, is it as this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
Still disoriented, Jesus told them again (John 17:18) that they were to minister throughout
the world and not be concerned about the times and the seasons (Acts 1:7-8). The time of
the end would come according to the Father's own authority and they should concentrate
now on servicing the "remotest part of the earth."
The expectation of the early church, prior to the fall of Jerusalem, concerned the events
surrounding that fall and the events that would follow it. The events that Jesus described at
Luke 21:12-24 had to occur before the fall of Jerusalem, and they could and indeed, would
take place from the very beginning after the formal arrival of the Spirit at the Day of
Pentecost. Accordingly, the fall of Jerusalem, which would be portended by the city being
surrounded by armies, could happen any time after the persecution activity began.
Furthermore, there is no specific time period allotted to the time after the fall of Jerusalem,
so that technically, the Lord could return during that time. In other words, the "signs of
summer," which are the events of the tribulation, could happen at any time after the fall of
Jerusalem, but NOT prior to that fall. The Day of the Lord arrival of Jesus then, was NOT
imminent before the fall of Jerusalem.
And as we have seen, His return could not be imminent after the fall of Jerusalem UNTIL the
birth process characterized by BOTH the beginning birth pains and the final birth pains
(tribulation) begins.
Blow #8:
Israel must be restored as a nation for Daniel 9:27 to be fulfilled.
Of course, this is predicated on the view that accepts Daniel 9:27 as referring to a covenant
of peace with the nation of Israel that allows her to engage in her ancient sacrifices and
tabernacle worship.
Based on Daniel 9:27 and the prophet's words, "He shall confirm the covenant with many
for one week," pretribulationists have historically and continuously insisted that the
Antichrist will make a covenant with Israel to protect her for seven years (the seventieth
week of the Book of Daniel). It is that event which triggers what is commonly referred to as
the Tribulation Period. But from the defeat of the Jewish nation in A.D. 70 until the
emergence of the modern State on May 14, 1948, no Jewish nation or representative
government existed. Hal Lindsey has written:
"The events leading up to the coming of the Messiah Jesus are strewn throughout the Old
and New Testament prophets like pieces of a great jigsaw puzzle. The key piece of the
puzzle which was missing until our time was that Israel had to be back in her ancient
homeland, reestablished as a nation.
When this occurred in May 1948, the whole prophetic scenario began to fall together with
dizzying speed." 11
It would have been impossible for the Antichrist to sign a covenant of protection with a non-
existent nation. An any-moment Rapture, therefore, was not possible before the modern
State of Israel was resurrected out of the ashes of the Second World War. Israel could have
become a nation during any generation -- but the Rapture could not have preceded that
event.
Thus, I conclude these eight blows to imminence (unless and until I find some additional
factors to apply) and suggest that in the same way that the 2nd coming was not and could
not be imminent before 70 AD, it is not and can not be imminent after 70 AD UNTIL we see
"the signs of summer;" the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place in
Jerusalem.






Vlach: Introductory matters concerning the Rapture.
In his introduction, he makes a good Biblical case for the FACT of the rapture
including the validity of the term rapture based on the Latin. There is nothing to
disagree with in this first section.

Vlach: A Biblical defense of Pretribulationism Of these five views why is
Pretribulationism to be preferred? The following are biblical evidences for a
Pretribulational Rapture:
The pillars of Pretribulationism The foundation of Pretribulationism has four
elements:
Consistent literal interpretation The literal method of interpretation attempts to explain
the original sense of the writer according to the normal usages of words and language.
The literal method interprets all of the Bible in a normal and plain way, all the time
understanding that the Bible, at times, uses symbols, figures of speech and types.
It is true that the literal method of interpretation needs to be followed. But it is not true
that the literal method lead to a pretribulational rapture position. In fact, holding to a
pretrib position actually violates the literal method of interpretation in many ways.
These will all be discussed as this analysis progresses.
1. The pretrib position fails to follow the entire context of Matthew 24 and keep the
ONE second coming of Christ in view.
2. The pretrib position fails to compare scripture with scripture concerning many of its
claims.
3. The pretrib position fails to follow a literal hermeneutic by interpreting Rev. 4:1 as
a rapture passage.
4. The pretrib position fails to follow a literal hermeneutic by disallowing specific
rapture promises as referring to the rapture, but to Christs descent at Armageddon
instead.
5. The pretrib position fails to follow a literal hermeneutic by defining terms by
supposition rather than by direct statements of Scripture.

Vlach: Distinction between Israel and the Church
According to Thomas Ice, ((Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, The Truth About The
Rapture, pp. 25-26) ) "If Israel and the church are not distinguished, then there is no
basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church as a new and unique people of
God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old
Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by
replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's
destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as
two, but it also removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in
order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail
(Deuteronomy 28:13).
The more that believers see a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church,
the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is
describing a separate destiny and hope for her.
Prewrath does not violate dispensations. It does not merge Israel and the church. But it
does recognize that -
1. There are transitional periods between the dispensations.
2. That the 70
th
week of Daniel is NOT a time of Israels national favor with God. The
nation was under discipline from God for the first 69 weeks, and continues that way
until the end of the 70
th
week.
3. Accordingly, it is the church that remains on the earth at the beginning of the
70
th
week in order to be used by God to bring the gospel not only to Israel but to the
entire world (Matthew 10:21-23; 24:14).
4. Gods plan for Israel does NOT begin until the end of the 70
th
week.
5. See PreWrath and Dispensations
Vlach - via Ice: The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future
includes the seven-year tribulation, and then shortly before Christ's return to
Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah. . . . On the other hand, the
distinct hope for the church is Christ's any-moment return.<
This fails to properly define the tribulation. It is NOT seven years long. It is not the
same as the 70
th
week of Daniel. The tribulation begins at the midpoint of the week
and ONLY at the midpoint of the week. Matthew 24:29.
In addition, the hope of the church is to be delivered FROM WITHIN the time of
persecution by the GLORIOUS return of Jesus with His mighty angels in flaming fire.
2 Thes. 1:6-10.
It is not imminent but must await several things, among which are
1. The prophesied fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Luke 21:20-24
2. The arrival and death of Paul in Rome. Acts 23:11; 27:23-26
3. The return of Israel to the land as an independent nation.
For details on Imminency see:
The 8 blows to imminency
Vlach: Futurism Pretribulationism takes a futuristic interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27
and the book of Revelation. Daniel 9:24-27 gives the seven-year chronological
framework of the Tribulation while Revelation 6-18 details the judgments that make
up this period. Futurism sees prophecy as being fulfilled in the future, namely with the
Tribulation period, the Second Coming of Christ to earth, and the Millennial
Kingdom. Futurism is opposed to preterism, which sees prophecy as already being
fulfilled in the past, predominately in A.D. 70. Futurism is also opposed to historicism
which sees prophecy being fulfilled in the current Church Age.
I will announce at every opportunity when the pretribbers fail to properly define the
tribulation. Jesus made it perfectly clear that the tribulation will begin at the midpoint
of the 70
th
week of Daniel. Matthew 24:15-29.
Furthermore, even Daniel clarified that the tribulation would be expected to last 3
years. Dan. 12:1-7.

Vlach: Premillennialism At the end of the seven year Tribulation period, Jesus Christ
will return to earth in power and glory to set up an earthly Kingdom from Jerusalem
that will last for a literal one thousand years (see Rev. 20:1-6).

This is not the definition of premillennialism. Premillenialism is the return of Christ
before the 1000 year millennium begins. Pretrib and prewrath are simply views within
premillenialism. But according to all the passages, Jesus will return BEFORE the end
of the 70
th
week, while the church is being persecuted by the beast. This is the clear
irrefutable view of Paul at 2Thes. 1:6-10.
6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you
who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty
angels in flaming fire,8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not
obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the
presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,) 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on
that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed.
At this time, Jesus will come to the earth in the clouds of the sky in power and great glory (Mat. 24:30),
which is the blessed hope of the church; the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior
Christ Jesus. (Titus 2:13).
See 2 Thes. 2:6-10
See: Titus 2:13
The physical descent of Jesus prophesied at Revelation 19 is when he sets foot on the earth to battle the
worlds armies that have assembled at Armageddon. It is NOT the second coming, but rather an event
that comes several months after the second coming.
Vlach: What is the proper method for addressing this issue of the timing of the
Rapture?
Examine the Rapture and Second Coming passages Go first to the portions of
Scripture that speak directly about the Rapture and the return of the Lord to earth.
Study John 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 for the
Rapture. Examine Zechariah 14:1-21; Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke
21:25-27; and Revelation 19 for the Second Coming to earth.
The problem here is that he just does not categorize or label the passages properly.
There is only ONE second coming of Christ. It begins with his arrival in the clouds of
the sky in power and great glory. All the passages Vlach has listed refer to the second
coming except for Revelation 19. And he has left out some very important ones at
that.
Titus 2:13; 2 Thes. 1:6-10; 2 Thes. 2:1-3
Vlach: Examine implications of conclusions Proper methodology does not stop with
an examination of the primary texts addressing an issue. As John Feinberg says,
"While one should begin with passages that speak directly about the doctrine under
consideration, one must also pay attention to the implications of the doctrine. This is
especially important if, as in the case of the rapture, the passages about the rapture and
return of the Lord do not determine the question of the rapture's timing in relation to
the time of the Tribulation. . . . Implications and relations of doctrines to one another
are crucial. If one's position on a given theological issue is correct, it will fit with
other known theological and biblical truths rather than contradict them. (John S.
Feinberg, "Arguing for the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How" in, When the
Trumpet Sounds, Thomas Ice and Timothy eds. p. 191).
Feinberg is quoted, but makes a false statement. This is especially important if, as in
the case of the rapture, the passages about the rapture and return of the Lord do not
determine the question of the rapture's timing in relation to the time of the Tribulation.
. ..
There are passages that do in fact determine the timing of the rapture in relation to the
tribulation. The pretrib position simply ignores them or rationalizes them.
The pretrib is divided about whether Matthew 24:36-44 should refer to (1) the coming
that is mentioned in verses 29-31, which they claim to be the coming at Armageddon,
or (2) the rapture which they claim is not referred to in verse 31.
So I shall state in reference to #2, that IF verses 36-44 refer to the rapture, then the
literal interpretation DEMANDS that verses 29-31 refers to the arrival of Jesus that is
promised to the church and verse 31 refers to the gathering of the saints at the rapture.
In that case, verse 29 is explicit and irrefutable. But immediately after the tribulation
of those days.
Of course, it has to be realized that the tribulation is NOT the 70
th
week of Daniel.
And also that it will begin at the midpoint of the 70
th
week, and be CUT SHORT from
its expected duration. Thus the statement that He comes after the tribulation is
perfectly consistent with no one knows the day or the hour, because the tribulation
will be cut short by the decree of God at some unknown day and hour prior to the end
of the 70
th
week.
THIS IS EXPLICIT.
2 Thes. 2:1-3 is also explicit when one does not rationalize the meaning of the noun,
apostasy. The Day of the Lord, which is clearly indicated to occur in direct
connection with the coming of the Lord and our gathering together to Him, will
not occur until there first comes that apostasy and the man of lawlessness is revealed.
In other words, the gathering (rapture) will occur after the midpoint of the week; after
the tribulation has begun.

Vlach: Putting it all together "The key point to remember is that proper theological
methodology dare not allow us to ignore either the rapture and parousia passages or
the doctrines that have implications for one's views on the rapture and second advent.
Although study should begin with passages that speak directly to the topic at hand,
both are equally important. It is surely no victory to uphold one's views on the timing
of the rapture at the expense of denying what God's Word says, for example, about the
relation of the church to God's judgmental wrath." (John Feinberg, p. 192)
Certainly this is true. However, this time of Gods judgmental wrath must be
properly defined. Nowhere in Scripture is the tribulation described as a time of Gods
wrath. It is clearly a time of Satans wrath against Gods people. The deeds of the
beast (antichrist) are not expressions of Gods wrath. And as was clearly established
above, the rapture occurs AFTER the tribulation has been cut short by the sovereign
decree of God.
It is then that Gods wrath will be poured out on the earth via the trumpets and bowls.
The first 5 seals represent the time of the antichrist, and do not involve the wrath of
God.
It is at the 6
th
seal that Jesus appears to the human race, and they proclaim, hide us
from the wrath of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Rev.
6:16.
They recognize that the great day of their wrath has come. It is at the 6
th
seal that
the Day of the Lord begins and the wrath of God is about to be poured out. Gods
wrath will not be present in the first 5 seals, and it is erroneous to claim that the first 5
seals are judgments from God or expressions of Gods wrath.

Vlach: Biblical evidence for Pretribulationism The Bible does not explicitly tells us
the timing of the Rapture. Thus, no one verse tells us that the Rapture will be
pretribulational (or midtribulational or posttribulational for that matter).

As already shown above, the Bible is very explicit that the rapture will occur AFTER
the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-42) and DURING the tribulation (2Thes. 1:6-10). But
I must repeat that the tribulation is NOT the 70
th
week; does not begin at the start of
the 70
th
week; and does not end at the end of the 70
th
week. It begins at the midpoint of
the week, and is ended, by being cut short at an unknown day and hour prior to the
end of the week.

Vlach: Does this mean that the doctrine of pretribulationism is unbiblical? Not
necessarily. . . Likewise a harmonization of biblical texts shows the pretribulational
rapture view to be biblical. The following are the biblical evidences:
Vlach: God has promised the Church deliverance from divine wrath (1 Thess. 1:10;
5:9; Rev. 3:10) God made a special promise to the church that it will be delivered
from the future, tribulational wrath of God. It is best to take this deliverance as a
physical removal (Rapture) from this time of divine wrath.
While it is true that the church is promised deliverance from divine wrath, the Bible
never assigns divine wrath to the tribulation, but to the DAY OF THE LORD, which
follows the tribulation. Pretribbers seem to pride themselves in Biblical accuracy, but
they have failed to properly define terms, and accordingly have adopted a system
based on supposition and un-provable theory.

1 Thess. 1:9-10 The Thessalonians were wait[ing] for His Son from heaven. . . that is
Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come. Why does this wrath refer to the
Tribulation? First, the context of 1 and 2 Thessalonians deals with the Day of the Lord
and the judgment of God that precedes the coming of Christ. Second, the text states
that it is a future wrath ("wrath to come"). Third, it is a wrath one can be rescued from
by the return of Christ. Thus, The wrath referred to then is the wrath of the Tribulation
period and not God's eternal wrath in general.
The question that is asked: Why does this wrath refer to the Tribulation, is not
proved by his subsequent statements.
1. The Day of the Lord is NOT the tribulation, but begins AFTER the tribulation.
Just compare, Joel 2:15 and Matthew 24:29-30, and it is obvious that it is the same
event that is in view, which Joel designates as The Day of the Lord.
2. A future wrath does not require that it take place in the tribulation. The
tribulation is NEVER designated explicitly as a time of divine wrath. On the other
hand, the Day of the Lord is explicitly identified as a time of divine wrath.
3. Yes, the believer is delivered out from, that is BEFORE the time of wrath begins,
but that does not prove that it is the tribulation, or that the believer is removed before
the trib.
Vlach: 1 Thess. 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Why does this wrath refer to the Tribulation? The
immediate context is the wrath of the Day of the Lord (5:1-8). Plus, this must be the
same wrath as 1 Thess. 1:10.
But never is divine wrath associated with the tribulation. The Day of the Lord is not
the tribulation.
Vlach: The whole seven year Tribulation period is a time of God's divine wrath so the
protection promised must be for the whole seven years. Some have tried to say that
divine wrath does not characterize the whole seven year Tribulation period. They say
that the early judgments (the seals) of the tribulation are the wrath of man and Satan.
The following points, however, show that the whole Tribulation period is a time of
divine wrath.
This person continues to make the statement that the tribulation is a time of Gods
divine wrath, but fails to provide even one passage of Scripture that even HINTS that
the statement is true.
Vlach: Jesus is the One who directly opens all the Tribulation judgments including the
seal judgments which begin the Tribulation period. In Revelation 4 and 5 Jesus is the
One found worthy to open the seals which He begins to open in 6:1. The opening of
the seals by Christ indicates that the seal judgments are divine wrath.
This is an unfounded assumption.
1. There is no divine wrath involved in the first 5 seals. No wrath is mentioned or
even hinted at. The first five seals are not even JUDGMENTS from God. Instead, the
events of the first 5 seals represent the activities of the beast expressing the wrath of
Satan toward Gods people.
2. Just because Jesus opens the seals does not mean that they involve divine wrath.
On what basis do the actions of Christ demand that those actions are expressions of
wrath? The 7-sealed book represents the expression of Gods wrath via the trumpet
and bowl judgments. Before that wrath is expressed and the judgments are poured out
on the earth, the events portrayed by the seals must occur. The seals must be opened
before the book can be read.

Vlach: The seal judgments which open the Tribulation are consistent with divine
wrath "The judgments of these four seals include the sword, famine, pestilence, and
wild beasts, frequently used in Scripture as the expressions of divine wrath. Indeed,
they are all included and named when God calls His 'four severe judgments upon
Jerusalem: sword, famine, wild beasts and plague' (Ezek. 14:21)." (Gerald B. Stanton,
"A Review of the Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, Bibliotecha Sacra, vol. 148 #589,
January 1991) Plus, plagues such as pestilence and wild beasts can hardly be caused
by man.
The presence of these items does not require that it comes from God.
Sometimes God uses things to discipline nations.
Sometimes these things are directly administered by God and sometimes
they are natural consequences of the way a society manages itself.
Just because a famine occurs does not mean it is from God, let alone
WRATH from God. Permitted by Him, most certainly, but not necessarily
directly from Him. This applies to each of the other factors as well.
In the case of the first 5 seals, these are things that are caused by the
oppressive actions of the beast, and not by God.
Vlach: As early as the sixth seal, unbelievers declare that God's wrath "has come"
(Rev. 6:16-17). Unbelievers recognize that all six seals that have happened so far are
the direct wrath of God. Robert L. Thomas says "The verb elthen ('has come') is aorist
indicative, referring to a previous arrival of the wrath, not something that is about to
take place. Men see the arrival of this day at least as early as the cosmic upheavals
that characterize the sixth seal (6:12-14), but upon reflection they probably recognize
it was already in effect with the death of one-fourth of the population (6:7-8), the
worldwide famine (6:5-6), and the global warfare (6:3-4). The rapid sequence of all
these events could not escape public notice, but the light of their true explanation does
not dawn upon human consciousness until the severe phenomena of the sixth seal
arrive." (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7, pp. 457-58)
This is an erroneous understanding of the use of the aorist tense here. It does not
require a retrospect to the events of the previous seals. These people are reacting to
the arrival of Jesus, not to the things that have ALREADY happened, and in fact, have
been going on for several months. The expression of these people is made IN VIEW
of what is about to come upon them because they see the presence of Jesus, who has
arrived in the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
They say, for the day of their wrath has come. That means that it is NOW TIME for
Gods wrath to begin to be poured out on the earth.
This is perfectly consistent with Matthew 24:29-30 and 1 Thes. 5:3.
While they are saying peace and safety, then destruction will come on them suddenly
like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
In the previous 5 seals, it is not the general populace of the world who are affected, it
is the ones who fail to accept beast worship. The others are living in peace and
security until Christ arrives in the clouds of the sky and pops their balloon, bringing
them the reality of impending wrath and judgment from God.
Vlach: 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 upon the earth. Here is a promise to the Church
of preservation outside of the time of Tribulation. Thus, believers are not only
promised deliverance from divine wrath but from the time period ("hour") of divine
wrath. This rules out the possibility of the Church being on earth during the
Tribulation. As Ryrie says, "It is impossible to conceive of being in the location where
something is happening and being exempt from the time of the happening."
Basically, there is nothing in the context that identifies this hour of testing as the
tribulation. This is pure speculation. There are other options, so it is certainly a weak
argument to use in defense of a pretrib rapture. According to the PreWrath view, it
refers instead, to the Day of the Lord which will begin AFTER the tribulation has
been cut short by the sovereign decision of God, and Christ arrives on the earth.
So any appeal to this passage alone is a draw.
See details for Revelation 3:10
Vlach: Differences between Rapture passages and Second Coming passages indicate
that the two are different events happening at different times. The central passages
dealing with the Rapture are John 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 and 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18. The central passages dealing with the Second Comingto earth are Zechariah
14:1- 21; Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27 and Revelation 19. A
careful examination of these texts will show that there is enough reason to conclude
that the Rapture and the Second Coming to earth are not the same event:
I suggest that a careful examination shows just the opposite!
See: The rapture and second advent contrasted

Vlach: The Second Coming is preceded by signs but the Rapture is presented as
imminent with no signs preceding it. "In passages that deal with the Second Advent
there are signs or events that lead up to and signal the return of Jesus Christ (e.g.,
Matt. 24:4-28; Rev. 19:11-21). In each of these passages of Scripture there is the
careful and extensive itemizing of details that should alert believers in that day that
the Second Advent is about to occur. . . . On the other hand, there is no mention of any
signs or events that precede the Rapture of the church in any of the Rapture passages.
The point seems to be that the believer prior to this event is to look, not for some sign,
but the Lord from heaven. If the Rapture was a part of the complex of events that
make up the Second Advent, and not distinct from it, then we would expect that there
would be a mention of signs or events in at least one passage." (See Paul D. Feinberg,
"The Case For The Pretribulation Rapture Position," in Gleason Archer, Paul
Feinberg, Douglas Moo, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post Tribulational? p. 80)
There is no similarity between Matthew 24:4-28 and Revelation 19.
Matthew 24:29-31 is clearly the return of Jesus to gather His elect.
Revelation mentions nothing like this.
Of course the believer is to look for the coming of the Lord rather than the signs. But
that does not mean that no signs will occur. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that there
are certain specific things that must occur before the Lord can return. These have
already been shown in this article.

Vlach: The Rapture is presented as a coming in blessing while the Second Coming is
a coming for judgment. "In the clear Rapture passages, the Lord's coming is presented
as a coming in blessing for the saints. Nothing is said about His coming for judgment.
On the other hand, passages about the second advent speak of the Lord's coming in
judgment upon His enemies (Rev. 19:11ff; Joel 3:12-16; Zech. 14:3-5)." (John
Feinberg, p. 198). "In each of the Rapture passages there is no mention of trial before
the event. Rather, there is the bare promise of Christ's return for His own." (Paul
Feinberg, p. 81)
This is simply a false statement. 2Thes. 1:6-10 makes it very clear that when Jesus
comes to give relief to the church which will be under extreme persecution pressure,
He is likewise coming to judge those who are doing the persecuting (quoted above).
How or why can Mr. Feinberg totally ignore this passage?
Yes, at the arrival of Jesus in the clouds of the sky to gather His elect from the earth,
he will come IN JUDGMENT with His mighty angels in flaming fire.
1Thes. 5:1-3 is another very clear statement that when the Day of the Lord arrives it
will be a time of great judgment on the earth-dwellers, for then sudden destruction
will come upon them like birth pangs of a woman in labor.
And speaking of coming in blessing, there is the promise at Titus 2:13, that the
coming of Jesus for His saint is described as the appearing of the glory of the great
God and our Savior Christ Jesus.
Vlach: Second Coming passages are in the context of the setting up of the Kingdom
while the Rapture passages make no mention of the Kingdom. "Second advent
passages are invariably followed by talk of setting up the kingdom after the Lord's
return (e.g., Matt. 24:31; 25:31ff; Zech. 14; Joel 3; Rev. 19-20). So, the second advent
is preparatory to the establishment of the millennial kingdom. On the other hand, clear
rapture passages give no hint that after the rapture the Lord establishes the kingdom."
(John Feinberg, p. 198)
This is an empty argument. There is no need to mention the establishment of the
kingdom at the very moment of the rapture. There are several things that must occur
before that kingdom is set up. In the Old Testament, the arrival of the Messiah is
portrayed as the arrival of The Day of the Lord. During that day there are several
things that will occur all leading up to the establishment of Christs earthly reign.
There is only one second coming. It is a TIME PERIOD with a single INCEPTION
event, and several subsequent events.
Matthew 24:29-31 (32-44) deals with the INCEPTION event, at which time the
gathering of the saints will occur.
Matthew 25:31ff deals with the TIME PERIOD that begins with Christs arrival (the
inception event) and involves the establishment of the earthly kingdom.
Likewise, the Day of the Lord is a time period with a single inception event and
several subsequent events.
1Thes. 5:2 deals with the inception of the Day of the Lord, as does 2Thes. 2:1-3.
2 Peter 3:10-13 deals with the time period.
Failure to deal with ALL the passages with a consistent hermeneutic has resulted in
the theory that the arrival of Jesus to rapture his saints is NOT the second coming, and
that His descent at Armageddon IS His second coming.
In actuality, the arrival of Jesus to rapture His saints is the INCEPTION EVENT of
the second coming and His descent to the earth at Armageddon is one of the
subsequent events that occur during the TIME PERIOD of the second coming.
Vlach: Glorified bodies at the Rapture "It is very clear from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
and 1 Corinthians 15:51ff that at the rapture those gathered to the Lord will be
glorified. On the other hand, second advent passages say nothing about anyone (living
or dead) receiving a glorified body." (John Feinberg, p. 198) "Nowhere in the texts
that deal with the Second Advent is there the teaching about the translation of living
saints." (Paul Feinberg, p. 82)
Still a confusion of terms. The second advent IS IN FACT, when Jesus arrives in the
clouds of the sky, fulfilling the promise He made to the disciples at Acts 1:11, and
prophesied later by the apostles. There is only one second coming.
The descent of Jesus at Armageddon is NOT the second advent, but and event that
occurs several months after His arrival.
And the fact that Armageddon passages do not mention the glorification of the saints
is perfectly consistent.

Vlach: No mention of meeting in the air in Second Coming passages Nowhere in the
Second Coming passages is a meeting in the air mentioned.

Again, simply the failure to recognize that the second coming inovles both an
INCEPTION event and a TIME PERIOD with many subsequent events.
Vlach: Differences in timing of resurrections "There seems to be an inconsistency
between the time of the resurrection at the Rapture and at the Second Coming. In the
central Rapture passage dealing with this issue, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, the time of
the resurrection of dead saints in clearly stated to be during the descent of Christ of to
the earth. Those raptured, living and dead saints, will be caught up to meet the Lord in
the air. Contrast that information with what is found in Revelation 19-20. There, the
order seems to be: the descent of Christ, the slaying of His enemies, the casting of the
Beast and the False Prophet into the lake of fire, the binding of Satan, and then the
resurrection of the saints. It seems as though the resurrection of the dead will
be during the descent at the Rapture, but after the descent at the Second Coming."
(Paul Feinberg, p. 84)
1. At the arrival of Jesus in the clouds of the sky, the living saints and the dead saints
of all ages will be resurrected. Mat. 24:31; 1 Thes. 4:14-17. This is the rapture.
2. After the rapture, there will be new converts to Christ and new martyrs.
3. After Armageddon, those additional martyrs will be resurrected. This is what Rev.
20:4 is talking about. Notice that it is very restrictive. It is talking ONLY about those
who were killed at the hands of the beast. That must refer to those who were killed
between the rapture and Armageddon.

Vlach: Differences in destiny at time of comings "There seems to be an inconsistency
between the destination of those who are raptured in the Rapture and the destination
of those who participate in the Second Coming. In the posttribulation understanding
of the events that surround the Second Coming, the church will be caught up to meet
the Lord in the air and will immediately accompany Him on His continued descent to
the earth. Compare that with John 14:3. In the Rapture the Lord is going to come and
take those raptured to be with Him. The clear implication is that the raptured saints
will be taken to heaven, not earth. If this is so, then the destination of those caught up
in the Rapture will be heaven. According to the Second Coming passages, however,
the saints involved are headed for the earth." (Paul Feinberg, p. 84)

1. This ASSUMES that the armies at Rev. 19:14 are saints. It is more likely that
they are angels, for the groom does not bring his bride into battle with him. And there
is no promise in Scripture that says that the church will be involved with this battle.
2. So while it certainly is A CLEAR IMPLICATION that the raptured saints will be
taken to heaven, it is definitely NOT a clear implication that Jesus will bring believers
with Him at Armageddon.

Vlach: The role of the angels in the comings At the Second Coming, the angels are the
ones who will gather the elect (Matt. 24:31). At the Rapture Jesus is the direct agent
of the gathering (1 Thess. 4:16).

When Jesus USES the angels to gather the saints, it is STILL Jesus who is doing the
gathering. It is CLEARLY understood by those who heard Jesus and those who wrote
down His words that it is JESUS himself who gathers the saints THROUGH the
agency of the angels. There are dozens of things that are done BY God, but He uses
agents to carry out the actions.
Once again, the proponents of this pretrib theory fail to properly evaluate ALL the
passages involved. They use Mat. 24:31 to show a difference between 1 Thes. 4:16.
Mat. 24:31, And HE will send forth His angels with a Great Trumpet and THEY will
gather together His elect from the four winds, form one end of the sky to the other.
1Thes. 4:16-17, 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 shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds of the sky.
This passage does not say HOW the saints are gathered. It simply states that they ARE
gathered.
But to answer the argument, all we need do is look at Mark 13:27.
And then He will send forth His angels, and HE will gather together his elect form
the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth, to the farthest end of heaven.
Jesus is the one who gathers the saints USING the angels.

Vlach: The "mystery" nature of the Rapture "Paul speaks of the Rapture as a 'mystery'
(1 Cor. 15:51-54), that is, a truth not revealed until it was disclosed by the apostles
(Col. 1:26). Thus the Rapture is said to be a newly revealed mystery, making it a
separate event. The Second Coming on the other hand, was predicted in the Old
Testament (Dan. 12:1-3; Zech. 12:10; 14:4). (Thomas Ice in "The Biblical Basis for
the Pretribulational Rapture," in Basic Theology Applied, p. 269)

This is a pointless argument. The rapture occurs AT the second coming. It is part of
the second coming; a part that was not fully revealed in the Old Testament. That does
not mean that the second coming and the rapture occur at different times. It has
already been shown irrefutably that there is only one second coming that involves
both an INCEPTION event and a TIME PERIOD. The rapture occurs at the
INCEPTION event, and Armageddon is a subsequent even within the time period, but
is not the actual second coming.
Vlach: No mention of the Church in Revelation 4-18 Revelation 4-18 gives
the most detailed account of the seven year Tribulation period. If the Church
were to be in the Tribulation period, surely one would expect at least one
reference to the Church in this time period. The Church, however, which is
referred to nineteen times in the first three chapters of Revelation, is
suddenly silent and never referred to in chapters 4-18. "It is remarkable and
totally unexpected that John would shift from detailed instructions for the
Church to absolute silence about the Church for the subsequent 15 chapters
if, in fact, the Church continued into the tribulation." (Richard L.
Mayhue,Snatched Before the Storm, p. 8)


The absence of the word CHURCH does not mean it is not present.
Furthermore, the mention of the church is not an issue one way or the other.
Of course, the right chronology needs to be adhered to.
According to the PreWrath view, the church is here during the first 5 seals,
and is raptured at the 6
th
seal. This is at an unknown day and hour after the
midpoint of the week, when the tribulation will be cut short by the sovereign
decree of God and Jesus arrives in the clouds of the sky with power and
great glory. During this time the church is identified by the term, saints
and those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony
of Jesus.
After the 6
th
seal, the church will be gone and during the trumpet and bowl
judgments it will not be present. However, even then, there will be saints
on the earth, who are converted after the rapture.
For a detailed refutation of this argument see: THE REVELATION 4:1
RAPTURE THEORY; THE CHURCH IN REVELATION
Vlach: Pretribulationism best explains the presence of non glorified saints who will
enter the Millennial Kingdom.

This is not a problem with the Prewrath view, for there is plenty of time after the
6
th
seal rapture for people to become saved.
Vlach: The nature and purpose of the Tribulation excludes the Church from being part
of it.

Nature of Tribulation centers on Israel According to Daniel 9:24-27, the "seventy
weeks" prophecy including the final "one week" (seven years) is for Israel ("your
people"). Jeremiah 30:7 refers to the Tribulation period as a time of "Jacob's distress."
"While the church will experience tribulation in general during the present age (John
16:33), she is never mentioned as participating in Israel's time of trouble, which
includes the great tribulation, the day of the Lord, and the wrath of God." (Ice and
Demy, The Truth About The Rapture, p. 36)
1. The 70 weeks does not CENTER on Israel. It is simply the remainder of time
promised to the nation. There is a TRANSITION period where the church is still
present to minister to Israel and prepare her to once again take over the function of
being the evangelistic agent of God on the earth after the 6
th
seal.
2. The tribulation as the time of Jacobs distress is NOT a time of divine wrath. It is a
time of great persecution from Satan and man on both unbelieving Israel and any who
believe in Christ at that time.
3. The tribulation is not the day of the Lord and not the wrath of God. No where is
Gods wrath ever associated with the tribulation or the Time of Jacobs distress.

Vlach: Purpose #1: Preparation of Israel "The Bible teaches that the Tribulation is a
time of preparation for Israel's restoration and conversion (Deuteronomy 4:29, 30;
Jeremiah 30:3-11; Zechariah 12:10)." (Ice and Demy, p. 36)

There is no conflict with this idea. A purpose for Israel does not negate a purpose for
anyone else who might be present. It does not mean that the church MUST be gone.
And of course, there are passages that indicate the church will in fact be present
during the time of the tribulation. 2 Thes. 1:6-10; 2:1-3

Vlach: Purpose #2: Judgment for an unbelieving world Revelation 3:10 refers to the
Tribulation period as "the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the
whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth." The second major purpose of
the Tribulation, then, is to test the unbelieving world. "Those who dwell upon the
earth" refers to those who are unbelievers on earth during the period described in
Revelation 4-19. (Thomas Edgar, "An Exegesis of Rapture Passages," in Issues in
Dispensationalism, p. 216)

The problem here is that Rev. 3:10 does not describe the hour of testing as the
tribulation.
It refers to the Day of the Lord which will begin after the tribulation is cut short by the
sovereign decree of God and the arrival of Jesus in the clouds of the sky in power and
great glory.
Instead, according to 2Thes. 1:6-7, the tribulation will be on-going at the time of
deliverance from the hour of trial. And the church age believers who are alive on
the earth at that time, who are being afflicted (who are experiencing tribulation
Greek word, thlibo), will be given relief, and the ones who are left will then be
repaid with affliction (tribulation). But the affliction (tribulation) that they will
encounter is not THE tribulation, but the Day of the Lord wrath and the judgments of
the trumpets and bowls.
Vlach: The nature of the Church If the nature of the Tribulation is Jewish and the
purpose of the Tribulation is to bring Israel to belief and to judge the unbelieving
world, what purpose does the church have in relation to this period? As shown
already, the church is promised deliverance from this time of wrath (1 Thess. 1:10;
5:9; Rev. 3:10).

There are so many suppositions here.
1. The tribulation is not Jewish.
2. The purpose of the tribulation is NOT to judge the world. The purpose of the Day
of the Lord judgments is to judge the world.
3. The purpose of the tribulation is NOT to bring Israel to belief. The purpose of the
church is to bring Israel to belief. Mat. 10:23; 24:14. And it is actually, the rapture of
the church at the arrival of the Lord in the clouds of the sky at the 6
th
seal, that then
triggers so many to believe. Rev. 6-7.
4. The church is promised deliverance from the time of wrath that begins at the Day of
the Lord. The tribulation is not that time of wrath, but precedes it.
Vlach: The expectation of the Church is the imminent coming of Christ not the
Tribulation period.

The false theory of an imminent rapture has already been dealt with.
Additional information: Rosenthal's article refuting imminency.


Vlach: "It is incongruous then that the Scriptures would be silent on such a traumatic
change for the Church. If posttribulationism were true, one would expect the epistles
to teach the fact of the Church in the tribulation, the purpose of the Church in the
tribulation, and the conduct of the Church in the tribulation." (Mayhue, p. 9)

Actually, the epistles do in fact teach us how to live during the tribulation. It is no
different from any other time of persecution. And Paul does in fact indicate that the
Lord will return at His official one and only second coming while the church is
experiencing the tribulation. 2Thes. 1:6-10.

Vlach: The Thessalonian's expectation That Paul had taught a Pretribulational Rapture
can be inferred from 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3. In this passage, Paul notes that the
Thessalonians had been "shaken" and "disturbed" because they had been led to think
that they were presently in the Day of the Lord (i.e. the Tribulation period). <
This is simply false. It is clear that the Day of the Lord is not the tribulation, but is a
period of time that will begin AFTER the tribulation has been cut short by the
sovereign decree of God and Jesus arrives in the clouds of the sky in power and great
glory.
Mat. 24:29-31; Joel 2:31; Rev. 6:12-17
Vlach: The fact that they were disturbed is significant. If Paul had taught a
posttribulational rapture, the Thessalonians would have had no reason to be disturbed
since they would be expecting signs and persecution before the coming of the Lord.
Thus, they could joyously look to the soon coming of the Lord after the Tribulation.
However, the fact that the Thessalonians were shook up indicates that they did not
expect to be in the Day of the Lord. A fair inference is that, in line with Paul's
previous teaching, the Thessalonians expected to be raptured prior to the Day of the
Lord.
BUT they WERE going through tribulation. They just did not know if it was in fact
THE tribulation. So Paul assures them that the sign of the tribulation will be the
revealing of the man of lawlessness. And their concern about being in the Day of the
Lord, from which they were promised deliverance (for it is the day of the lord that is
WRATH), is eased because Paul assures them that that day wont come until the man
of lawlessness is revealed.
Their concern is not about the tribulation. It is about the Day of the Lord and these
are two different time periods.
SUMMARY:
All of these issues must be evaluated by the believer and each one must become fully
persuaded in his own mind.
1. Definitions must be based on biblical language and passages; not on supposition.
2. Literal interpretation is correct, but it must be followed consistently.
3. All passages need to be considered concerning this subject. It has been shown how
errors exist because of a failure to consider all the passages.
Todd Strandberg wrote an article for PropheZine called, "Defending the Pre-Trib Rapture,"
that attempted to refute the prewrath rapture view. This article is offered in defense of pre-
wrath and as a refutation of Mr. Strandberg's article.

As anyone who has read my prophecy material knows, I am of the prewrath persuasion.
However, this does not make me aggressively antagonistic toward pretribbers or post
tribbers or any other "tribber" out there. "The Trouble with Tribbles" -- I mean, tribbers -- is
that they often place too much "spiritual" value on the issue of the timing of the rapture,
rather than on the issues of "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).
For any "tribber" to make accusations of heresy against another simply because he is a
different kind of "tribber" is totally without merit. These differences in eschatology should
certainly challenge us all to be extra diligent in our Bible studies as we seek to become fully
persuaded in our own minds (Romans 14:5), but never should they be the basis for the
ridicule and disdain that has been present among many on all sides of the issues under
discussion. In Todd's article, he seeks to defend against certain attacks on the pretrib
position. I shall endeavor to address those "defenses" and, in the process, to support the
prewrath view.
The first "defense" Todd discusses is:
The Margaret Mac Donald Origin
My answer to this might very well be controversial, but it needs to be said. It does not
matter whether a "view" on prophecy, or on any doctrinal issue for that matter, has
historical support. What it needs is BIBLICAL support, and ONLY biblical support will give
any viability to whatever view is being advocated. People throughout history can be wrong.
The church fathers could be, and indeed were, wrong in many areas. It does not matter
whether they believed in a pretrib or post trib or prewrath rapture, for where you find one
person to lend "historical" support to a particular viewpoint, you can always find another
person to lend "historical" support to an opposing viewpoint. Thus, we are forced back to
the Scriptures once again as our only authority on spiritual reality and doctrinal issues. So I
will not make much of a fuss over all this concern about finding a pretrib rapture reference
that predates Margaret MacDonald. Nor shall I place much value on Pseudo-Ephraim, whom
Todd references as follows:
Ephraem the Syrian ... said in 373 AD,
For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and
are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of
our sins.
Todd writes,
"As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been
scratched."
To which I reply, as I indicated above: it is irrelevant. We MUST, after all, appeal back to
the Bible and not place too much value on "historical" pros and cons.
Todd's next defense concerns:
The Last Trumpet Argument
Todd writes,
Pre-wrath proponent[s] say that the Seventh Trumpet blown in Rev. 11:15-18 is the same
last trump Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 15:51. However, they fail to take into account the fact that
John wrote Revelation 40 years after Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. How
could Paul refer to something that was not yet revealed?"
I do not know whom Todd has read for information about the prewrath rapture viewpoint,
but the two "in-print" proponents have never stated that "the Seventh Trumpet blown in
Rev. 11:15-18 is the same last trump Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 15:51."
Now, I cannot defend Robert Van Kampen or Marvin Rosenthal on all points that they teach
concerning the prewrath view, for just as there are variances of understanding in the pretrib
view, so also among prewrath proponents there are such variances. Nor, for that matter, is
my intent to defend THEM at all, but to adequately represent the prewrath view as it can be
demonstrated within the Scriptures.
However, on this point, since we have a clear statement of misrepresentation, it is
necessary to correct it.
Robert Van Kampen writes in "The Sign" (p. 493):
Contrary to what some interpreters maintain, the "last trumpet" mentioned in that passage
[1 Cor. 15:52] cannot refer to the last of the seven trumpet judgments.
And Marvin Rosenthal, in "The Prewrath Rapture of the Church", dedicates 8 pages (187-
194) to the subject; he indicates, as seen by comparing the two charts on pages 147 and
194, that the two trumpets are not the same. Furthermore, he writes on page 193,
The last trump will be nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different than the final,
climatic, eschatological outpouring of the wrath of God.
The seventh trumpet is not the "last trumpet" spoken of by Paul. They should not be
equated but are separate and distinct. Paul's use of the phrase "the last trumpet" refers to
the call to assembly in the context of the Roman games, or even in a military context.
Either of these would be Paul's frame of reference in referring to the "last trumpet." In both
of these cases there was a preliminary trumpet (sometimes there were two) and then the
last one which was a call to assembly. Paul's "last trumpet" is the call to assembly for the
gathering of the saints. He would have no knowledge of John's vision and the seven
trumpets. Even though the Holy Spirit "melds" all of Scripture, it is not advisable to
interpret Paul's use in any way other than that indicated by the cultural context of the day,
in which the "last trumpet" spoke of the "call to assembly."
That is what will occur at the rapture. It is called THE trumpet of God at 1 Thess. 4:16,
because it is at this time that He will "call" for the gathering of His people (the elect) to
meet Him in the clouds of the sky. Nor does it require the "actual" occurrence of one or two
trumpet blasts before it, for the image in Paul's mind focuses simply on the final blast,
which is the "call to assembly."
The seventh trumpet, on the other hand, is clearly the last in a chain of seven which involve
the pouring out of God's wrath upon the earth. The first 6 trumpets constitute the throwing
of the fire of God's justice to the earth (Rev. 8:5) and the 7th trumpet announces the out
pouring of the FINAL wrath of God via the bowls (Rev. 11:18-19; 15:1; 16:1).
Todd continues in reference to trumpets:
Post-tribbers use a trumpet sounding in Joel 2:1 as evidence for a post-trib rapture on the
Day of the Lord. I have three problems with Joel 2:1:
First, before I deal with Todd's "three problems," let me say that the sounding of the
trumpet in no way gives evidence for a posttrib rapture. What it does, however, is to give us
a warning sign BEFORE the Day of the Lord arrives. How this affects one's view, then, is
determined by how he defines the time parameters of the Day of the Lord. If the Day of the
Lord begins at the start of Daniel's 70th week, then the trumpet sound occurs there. If the
Day of the Lord begins at the end of the 70th week, then the trumpet occurs there. If the
Day of the Lord begins at some as-yet-undisclosed time DURING the 70th week, then the
trumpet will sound at that point.
Todd's first problem with this trumpet issue is:
Joel clearly says the purpose for blowing the trumpet is to "sound an alarm."
Concerning this, the idea of "sounding an alarm," I find no contradictions. A trumpet blast,
after all, can serve two purposes. I suggest that the Day of the Lord begins very shortly
after the rapture takes place. This will probably need to be demonstrated in future articles,
if opportunity arises. But given this premise, no matter whether the Day of the Lord begins
just before the 70th week of Daniel or sometime within its seven-year time span, there IS
associated with that Day not only a trumpet of assembly for the church (1 Thess. 4:16; 1
Cor. 15:52) but also a trumpet of "alarm" for those who are unprepared. Is there any
reason that it cannot be the same trumpet blast that accomplishes both purposes? As
suggested earlier, the correct placement of the beginning of the Day of the Lord is crucial to
an accurate understanding of the whole end-times program.
Todd offers his second objection concerning the trumpet of Joel 2:1:
The rapture is something that occurs in the twinkling of an eye. Joel 2:1 says the Day of the
Lord is nigh at hand. In order for Joel's trumpet to be the same one in 1 Cor. there would
have to be a time delay between the sounding of the trumpet and the rapture of the
Church.
The rapture ITSELF, as the translation of the saints, most certainly occurs in "the twinkling
of an eye". However, that does not mean that there cannot be a trumpet announcing
Christ's return at that time. Paul says that it is AT the last trumpet that the rapture takes
place. This suggests that the trumpet sounds FIRST and then the gathering occurs. For
there to be a trumpet sound several minutes before the actual "snatching up" occurs does
not violate anything at all -- not even Imminency, for that matter. The trumpet sounds,
EVERYONE hears it, the unbelievers are caught off guard and panic, and the church is
gathered. That is what happens when Jesus returns AT the Day of the Lord.
Todd's third problem along these lines:
The fact that there is another trumpet being sounded in Joel 2:15 further clouds the
possibility that these trumpets could have anything to do with the rapture.
I think a more detailed analysis of Joel chapter 2 will show that the trumpet at verse 15 is
contemporary to Joel, and not related to the end times.
Joel 2:1-11 is prophetic in nature, warning the nation of Israel of the arrival of the Day of
the Lord, DURING which a great Northern army will invade her land.
At verse 12, it says, "yet EVEN NOW, declares Yahweh, return to Me." Verses 12-17
comprise a section which is contemporary with Joel and is his warning to the people of
Israel to recover NOW from their spiritual and moral rebellion, and to get right with God. In
other words, the reality of the future national crisis is applied to the contemporary crisis in
the nation at the time of writing. Thus, there is no contradiction in having a trumpet at
verse 1 AND at verse 15, for there it is blown as a warning to the nation in the time of Joel
to recover.
Todd's next defense concerns The First Resurrection. The argument is made, "There can not
be a pre-trib rapture because to have one would require a second resurrection at Christ's
return to earth." This conclusion is drawn from Revelation 20: 5-6:
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the
first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the
second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years. (Rev 20:5-6)
This issue is pertinent only to the post trib objections to pre trib (as well as to pre-wrath, for
that matter), and is not a problem for this writer.
However, when Todd discusses the 144,000 Jewish converts, he suggest something that I
would like to address.
He writes,
Revelation chapter 7 describes the sealing of the 144,000 Jewish evangelists just before the
Beast issues his mark. Sometime during the latter half of the tribulation, Revelation chapter
14 indicates they will be "redeemed from the earth," standing before the throne of God.
I suggest that these 144,000 are NOT standing before the throne of God, but are actually
viewed on the earth (represented by Mount Zion at verse 1) where they are engaging in
their evangelistic activities. The ones who are before the throne are the harpists. At verse 5,
the phrase, "before the throne" is mentioned again, but is given minimal support by the
manuscripts. Not even the "majority text" has it. I suggest that Revelation 14 picks up from
the same point in time as Revelation 7, when, after the rapture, the 144,000 are converted
and become bond-servants of God to represent the Messianic promise to those on the earth.
I do not see a "resurrection" of the 144,000 at Revelation 14. John sees them in "vision"
format, on Mount Zion which is on the earth; they are clearly CONTRASTED with the
harpists who are IN heaven (v. 2). The voice is from heaven, the harpists are in heaven (v.
3), and the phrase "and they sang before the throne" refers to the harpists singing in
heaven. No one could learn the song that the "harpists" were singing except the 144,000
who are still on the earth. Again, the two groups are contrasted.
In verse 4, "follow the Lamb wherever He goes," does not mean that they walk behind Him
physically everywhere, but that they are "faithful" to follow Him wherever He leads, just as
the faithful believer does right now here on earth. "Purchased from among men" explains
the phrase in verse 3, "purchased from the earth"; it does not mean that they were
purchased OUT OF, as in LEAVING, the earth, but that they were purchased from among
men AS FIRSTFRUITS to God and to the Lamb. This means that they were the FIRST ones
to be saved AFTER the rapture of the church.
In verse 5, the phrase, "before the throne" is not in the best Greek manuscripts and is an
addition that should not be considered as God's word.
It is much more likely that the 144,000 go into the millennial kingdom and spearhead the
new civilization of Jews in Palestine.
Although Dwight Pentecost does not view Rev. 14:1 as "picking up" from Rev.7:1-8, he
does recognize that the 144,000 are preserved alive to enter into the Millennial kingdom to
reign with Jesus. He writes:
They are called "the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb" (Rev.14:4), that is, they are the
first of the harvest of the tribulation period that will come into the millennium to populate
the millennial earth . . .these 144,000 are viewed as being preserved through all that the
earth experiences so that they may be first fruits of that period." (Things to Come, p. 300)
Todd's next defense is in reference to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-6:
Because Paul in 2 Thessalonians said the Antichrist would be revealed before the Day of the
Christ, post[trib] and pre-wrath adherents frequently try to cite this passage as one that
refutes the pre-trib rapture.
Paul told the Thessalonians that the Antichrist must first be revealed, because he was
attempting to clear up their misunderstanding that the Day of the Lord was about to take
place. Post-trib and pre-wrath folks consistently fail to realize that pre-trib doctrine calls for
a rapture and a second coming. Because they only look for one event - the second coming -
they're unable to recognize the pre-trib rapture references.
Here in 2 Thes 2, "The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto
him" is obviously the pre-trib rapture, and the "day of Christ" is a referral to the second
coming.
I must take exception to Todd's statement that 2 Thess. 2:1 "is obviously the pre-trib
rapture." The only thing that is obvious is that it IS referring to the rapture. And the natural
flow of the language indicates to me that the two events mentioned in verse 1, "The coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our gathering together unto him" are in actuality JOINED
together as BOTH occurring at the event designated as The Day of the Lord. (The choice of
terms, "Day of Christ" or "Day of the Lord," is a textual problem that is not pertinent to this
particular article.)
There is no rationale that allows me to see two different events in these three terms. The
same correlation is made in 1 Thessalonians.
(1)At 4:15 we have: "the coming of the Lord."
(2)At 4:17 we have: a "meet with the Lord in the air."
(3)And at 5:2, "The Day of the Lord will come like a thief."
At the time of the writing of the second letter, these believers had become concerned that
this EVENT had already occurred. So Paul writes, "Now we request . . . CONCERNING"
Christ's coming and our gathering to Him, that you guys not be upset by reports "to the
effect" that the Day of the Lord has come. Here, he equates the three terms as referring to
the same event. The Thessalonians are thinking that the Day of the Lord has already come,
that is, that Christ has already returned and that the gathering has already happened.
The whole point of this passage is to tell them that certain things must occur BEFORE what
they are concerned about can happen. In calming them, Paul makes a very important
equation of terms. And, yes, this also places two events BEFORE the coming of the Lord and
our gathering together to Him.
Todd's next defense concerns the issue of persecution.
Persecute Me Please. You would think the desire to go through the tribulation would be as
popular as the desire to jump into a pit filled with vipers and broken glass. As illogical as it
may seem, there appears to be a large number of Christians that fully expect to get
roughed up before Christ returns.
Of course, Todd's melodramatics are not necessary, for the real issue is whether the Bible
gives reason to "expect" such roughing up or not. I daresay that no one WANTS to be here
during the oppressive reign of the beast, and I certainly won't argue with the Lord should
He just "happen" to come back before it all starts. However, once again, the appeal to what
the Bible says must be paramount in our discussion of these things, and not emotional
desires pointing in one direction or another.
Todd Continues,
Many Christians argue strongly for the right to suffer persecution at the hands of the
Antichrist and the one world government. These Tribulation [saints] wannabes constantly
harp, "Because Jesus and his disciples suffered persecution we should expect no better."
To be fair, I must agree that JUST BECAUSE Jesus and the disciples suffered persecution is
no reason that the church should expect to go through the tribulation. However, there is
certainly NO PROMISE OF EXEMPTION from persecution activity, whether it be what the
early church encountered specifically (John 15:18-21), or what the godly should expect in
general (2Thess. 3:12).
Todd continues,
It's been my experience that people with the weakest faith are generally ones that talk the
boldest. When the slightest difficulty comes their way, they cry to heaven.
This paragraph, of course, is totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the Biblical truth we are
trying to discern. I trust that Todd will refrain from such judgmental embellishments should
we have opportunity to advance this discussion.
Todd holds forth a promise that may not be stated as "clearly" as he suggests:
I hate to be the bearer [of] good news, but the word of God clearly states that believers will
escape the tribulation bloodbath.
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"
(1 Thes 5:9)
I agree with this verse totally! However, the passage fails to define exactly WHAT that wrath
might be. There is nothing in the context that defines the time of "wrath" as the tribulation.
Todd Quotes Rev. 3:10,
"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of
temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."
As Todd should be well aware, Revelation 3:10 is a passage that has been bandied back and
forth for many years. Perhaps the details of this passage might be a subject for further
discussion. However, let me summarize the problems. We have two different ideas in trying
to explain what "keep thee from" means. And we have two different ideas in trying to
identify "the hour of temptation." Good scholars on both sides have provided their insights
and no resolution is at hand, except in the mind of each party respectively.
Too much is made of Rev. 3:10. It cannot be used as a "proof text" for pretrib, prewrath or
posttrib. And although pre-tribbers want to use it as just such a proof text, the proper view
of a pre-wrather should be that the use of the Greek words involved does not establish
absolutely that these believers are taken out before the "hour" begins, but can very easily
(as demonstrated by their use elsewhere) indicate preservation "within" the hour (as
discussed quite adequately by Robert Gundry).
Thus, I suggest that Rev. 3:10 NOT be used as a "proof text" for either view, but that the
solution be found elsewhere, with Rev. 3:10 being called upon for support rather than proof.
Now Todd breaks ranks with the standard pre-trib position by advocating a partial rapture
view. This is what I meant earlier when I said that even within the various "theories" there
is not total agreement as to the details.
Todd writes,
In one regard, people that think the Church will go through the tribulation are somewhat
correct. I believe there will be a huge number of "carnal Christians" that will find themselves
left behind.
This, of course, is another side issue, but I believe the idea of a partial rapture is totally
inconsistent with the reality of Union with Christ, in which all those who have believed in
Christ share. Let me review the standard view concerning partial rapturism.
John Walvoord provides 26 pages in opposition to the partial rapture theory (The Rapture
Question, pp. 105-125). He provides 3 points in summary on pages 124 and 125:
1. "The partial rapture theory is based on a works principle in opposition to Scriptural
teaching on grace."
2. "The partial rapture view divides the body of Christ."
3. The partial rapture view ignores "plain teaching concerning the translation of all true
believers when the event takes place."
Dwight Pentecost offers 6 pages in opposition to the theory (Things to Come, pp. 158-163),
and summarizes:
An examination of the Scriptures used by the partial rapturists to support their position
shows that their interpretation is not consistent with true exegesis. Since this view is out of
harmony with true doctrine and true exegesis, it must be rejected.
Todd's next line of defense relates to:
No Secret Rapture
"There is no secret rapture" is the beginning declaration of a large percentage of messages
that attack the rapture. Rarely is this statement backed by supporting scriptural evidence,
and Todd also failed to provide any "supporting scriptural evidence." A few people will cite
Rev 1:7 "every eye shall see him" as proof that the rapture will not be a secret event. Of
course, I would immediately note that "every eye shall see him" is the second coming.
However, let me suggest that whether there is a "secret" rapture or not has absolutely no
bearing on any view of the tribbers.
Nevertheless, let's look at Rev. 1:1-7.
Verse one: God gave this information to John "to show to His bond-servants." What bond-
servants might that be? The church?
Verse three: HAPPY the one who reads, hears and heeds the things which are written in it.
This promise of blessing is given to the church as the recipients of the book of The
Revelation.
Verse four: John writes TO the seven churches that are in Asia. This is a clear reference to
the church on the earth.
Verse five: "To Him who loves US and released US from OUR sins by His blood." This is a
reference to the church on the earth who are the recipients of the book.
Verse six: "And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father." This refers
to the function of the church on the earth as per 1Peter 2:9.
Verse seven: "Behold He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who
pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him."
Who was given the promise of His return? The church.
To whom is this book (at least this portion) written? The church.
Who is in view in verses 1-6? The church.
For what reason, then, do we address the last and concluding verse in the INTRODUCTION
of the book ... to someone OTHER THAN the church? Why switch like that? Is this "foreign"
to the expectation of the church? Look at Acts 1:9-11:
Verse nine: Jesus was lifted up and a CLOUD received Him out of their SIGHT.
Verse eleven: This Jesus will come in JUST THE SAME WAY as you WATCHED Him go into
heaven.
1. He went up "with" a cloud. (Acts 1:9) He comes back "with" a cloud. (Rev. 1:7)
2. He was SEEN going up and He will be SEEN coming back.
If Todd does not care for the use of Revelation 1:7 to indicate a "visible" return of Jesus at
the rapture, he needs to give evidence as to why the verse should be disassociated from
this section which deals ONLY with the church and the promise that was given to the
church.
Todd's next line of defense deals with:
No Imminency
Because an imminent or any moment rapture is one of the major teachings of pre-
tribulationists, opponents of this view attempt to dismantle the Imminency of the rapture.
I will deal only with what Todd brings up. This is another area that may require separate
and more detailed discussion. Todd suggests:
Although Jesus said, "Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come"
(Mat 24:42), advocates for knowing the "day" will claim this only applies to the unsaved.
Actually, I make no such appeal. It is unnecessary. The truth of the matter is, "no one
knows the day or the hour."
However, Jesus taught that we could know the SEASON.
That is exactly what He teaches in Matt. 24:32-42. The signs of summer are the events of
the tribulation described in verses 9-28. When we see those signs of summer, then we know
that summer is near: we know that the Lord's return FOR US is near.
Furthermore, on what basis does Todd make Matt. 24:42 refer to the rapture of the church?
He ought to apply some consistency. IF Matt. 24:29-32 does NOT apply to the rapture,
THEN v. 33-42 CANNOT apply to the rapture. But, as it is, the entire passage does indeed
apply to the return of Jesus for His church, when He will remove His church and pour out
wrath on the world.
Todd would have us all avoid monkey business:
Despite all their monkeying with scripture, pre-trib detractors just can not escape Jesus'
restriction against knowing the time of the rapture.
I again challenge the view that DIVIDES Matthew 24:29-42. Talk about monkeying around!
This is a major problem for most pre-tribbers. I say "most," because some see the sinking
ship of appealing to Matthew 24 for pretrib support, and abandon it before they go under
with it. In fact, Our Lord was so restrictive about the rapture he said its occurrence would
come as a total surprise. "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not
the Son of man cometh." (Matthew 24:44)
Now IF the phrase, "the Son of man cometh," in verse 42, refers to the rapture, then to
what does the phrase, "the Son of man coming" refer in verse 30?
Todd appeals to the 1260 days:
Now when it comes to the second coming, the Bible couldn't be more open. It clearly states
that Jesus will return 1260 days from the moment the Antichrist sits in the Temple of God
and declares himself to be God.
This cannot be proven. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus will return 1260 days from
the Antichrist's "session."
The closest it comes is at Matt. 24:29, which indicates that Jesus returns "immediately after
the tribulation of those days." But there is no place that tells us WHEN that tribulation
actually ends -- except the suggestion at Matt. 24:22 that "those days" will be "cut short,"
which could mean that His return comes SOONER than 1260 days after the midpoint of the
week. In such a case, we preserve "no one knows the day or hour."
But there is confusion in the pretrib and posttrib camps that views Jesus' descent to the
Mount of Olives as His second advent. Todd continues:
Because there exists both a known and an unknown date, many scholars have logically
concluded that there must be two different events occurring - the rapture and the second
coming.
The Day of the Lord is the second coming. This is the very coming the angels were talking
about at Acts 1:11:
"This Jesus, Who has been taken up from you, will come in just the same way as you have
watched Him go into heaven."
This is the second coming. The arrival at Armageddon is associated with His physical
descent to the earth, arriving first in Edom, then going to the Mount of Olives, and then to
Armageddon.
The next point of defense deals with:
The Restrainer
In 2 Thessalonians the apostle Paul speaks of a "he" that will restrain the advent of the
Antichrist. The restrainer's removal is required before that the Antichrist can be revealed.
I really have nothing to address here, except to suggest that whether the "restrainer" is the
Holy Spirit or someone or something else, there is absolutely no hint in the passage that
indicates it is the rapture that removes the restrainer. There is nothing that associates the
restrainer with the church or with the church's removal from the earth. It is not a strong
position if one argues a particular view from the standpoint of assumption.
Todd's next defense addresses:
Replacementism is the view that Israel, having failed God, has been replaced by the Church.
The Church is now seen as spiritual Israel and spiritual Jerusalem. This teaching claims that
all the promises and blessings, in fact Israel's entire inheritance, now belongs to the Church.
However, all is not lost for Israel; it gets to keep all the curses.
Dispensational theology, taught by nearly all pre-tribulationists, teaches that God has
separate strategies for dealing with the Church and the Jews.
I certainly do not agree with replacementism and, for the most part, pre-wrath proponents
are faithfully dispensational. However, the reality of dispensations does not REQUIRE that
the church be removed from the 70th week. In a previous edition of PropheZine, I provided
an article that harmonizes dispensational theology with the presence of the church in the
70th week of Daniel. It need not be reproduced here, but can be found on the PZ site as
"Prewrath and Dispensations." To summarize, there has always been a transitional period
between the dispensations, when God changed from one evangelistic agency (dispensational
administrator) to the next. There was a 40-year period between AD 30 and AD 70 which
served as the transition from the previous administrator (Israel) to the new administrator
(the church).
When God returns to the nation of Israel as the administrator of His truth on the earth,
there will be another transitional period, during which the church will be present to "pass
the baton" back to Israel by providing an accurate gospel message. When the rapture
occurs at the Day-of-the-Lord arrival of Jesus, the 144,000 Jews of Revelation 7:1-8 will
have accurate gospel information to accept and will thus trust in Jesus as the Messiah. A
short time (possibly just a few days) will be required for each one of these to come to terms
with the rapture reality and the gospel of Jesus Christ which they have been hearing. That is
why the four angels are told to delay the administration of "fire from the altar" until the
144,000 become saved (are sealed).
When you consider the change in focus, during the tribulation, from the Church to Israel,
the pre-trib rapture provides a good explanation for this transfer of attention.
And if that change of focus does not occur in the tribulation, as Jesus described it, but more
accurately, after the sixth seal, when the focus is indeed shifted to the 144,000 Israelites,
then the rapture of the church AT THAT POINT IN TIME (sixth seal) also provides a good
explanation.
In closing, let me appeal to reason and not emotion;
To objectivity and not tradition;
To edification and not warfare.