
I recently had the opportunity to write a paper on the Rapture for my Systematic Theology class. The Rapture is a topic that I have refrained from commenting on for years because I have not, up to this point, studied it sufficiently. I have long wanted to look into these issues and come to some conclusion for myself. When I saw on the class syllabus that the relationship between the Rapture and the Tribulation was an optional topic for the position paper, I knew the time had come to stop making excuses and commit myself to studying these things until I had come to some sort of conclusion. Any position that one holds on the Rapture and Tribulation must be held with an open hand. While it is true that scripture is perspicuous (clear), it is also true that scripture is not equally clear in all areas of doctrine. On matters of creation, salvation, and the nature of God and man for example, the Word of God is abundantly clear. On this issue, however, scripture is significantly less clear. The following represents the view which I believe best explains all of the scriptural data. I may well be wrong, but at this point, this is my view. I owe a BIG thank-you to my wife Rachel for being a sounding board for me during this process (I have a tendency to be a bore when I am so focused on something, and yet she STILL loves me!!), and for proof-reading the paper for me. I also owe a BIG thank-you to Rachel's sister Krista who took care of my family while I was in the library studying these things all last week. I also owe a BIG thank-you to my Dad for refining my ideas through fire, and for proof-reading as well. Of course, I owe the BIGGEST thank-you to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the illumination of His Holy Spirit, and an apology to Him as well if I have in any way misinterpreted His Holy Word. SO, THANKS everybody!! Please note that this paper had some serious page-length restrictions, and that it in no way discusses everything that could be discussed. I hope many of you find this helpful. Observing these caveats, enjoy the paper, be encouraged to look into the Word of God for yourself, and hold to the conclusions that the fruit your own study suggests.
AN ARGUMENT FOR
A MIDTRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE
Issue
The issue that will be dealt with in this paper is the relationship between the Tribulation and the Rapture of the church. More specifically, this paper will attempt to answer the question, when will the Rapture of the church occur: before, during, or after the time of suffering known as the Tribulation? This is a question which has fueled much significant, and often heated, debate over the years. It must be remembered that this is a debate which is confined to the ranks of Premillennial theologians. This allows for a few basic tenets of doctrine to be presupposed in the discussion. Most notable is the underlying assumption that Daniel 9 and the book of Revelation pertain to the future, and that the latter provides details concerning the fulfillment of the former. Ultimately, due to a lack of perfect scriptural clarity on this issue, a Christian may legitimately hold to any of these three views without departing from the ranks of orthodoxy. That being said, I believe that there is one view which seems to be more scripturally plausible than the others, and which I personally find to be intellectually satisfying.
Positions
There are three main positions regarding the timing of the Rapture, the posttribulational view, the pretribulational view, and the midtribulational view. The posttribulational view, which is held by many covenant theologians, and which was the predominant view until the middle of the nineteenth century, understands the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ just prior to the Millennium to be a single unitary event (Erickson 1998, 146). Wayne Grudem summarizes this view by saying, “After that time of Tribulation, at the end of the church age, Christ will return to earth to establish a millennial kingdom. When he comes back, believers who have died will be raised from the dead, their bodies will be reunited with their spirits, and these believers will reign with Christ on earth for one thousand years” [emphasis in original] (Grudem 1994, 1112).
While this position certainly simplifies eschatological chronology, it fails, in my view, to ascribe adequate significance to 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Millard Erickson says, “Posttribulationists do not believe that the rapture will follow the tribulation, for they do not use the terms rapture and translation (neither of which is a Biblical term)” [emphasis in original] (Erickson 1998, 145). Neither is “Trinity” a biblical word, yet the concept is clearly taught in scripture. Furthermore, the Greek word “ἁρπαγησόμεθα” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which we translate “caught up” is translated by the Latin word “rapiemur,” from which we derive the word “rapture.” “Rapture,” therefore, is a biblical word, and the concept is most certainly taught in 1 Thessalonians 4.
The second major view is the pretribulational view, which finds its genesis in the thought of John Nelson Darby, and which has been popularized by the Schofield Study Bible and dispensational theologians generally. According to the pretribulational view, the Rapture of the church will occur before the Tribulation. Pretribulationism, therefore, understands the Rapture to be fully distinct from the Second Coming of Christ. “Pretribulationism holds that Christ’s coming for His saints will be in the air before the Tribulation; after the Tribulation, Christ will come with His saints and to earth to reign for a thousand years” [emphasis in original] (Geisler 2005, 612). Pretribulationists view Daniel’s seventy “sevens” as seventy literal seven year periods which are appointed for the Jewish people as a nation. The last of these periods is identified as the Tribulation. Since the seventy “sevens” are meant for the Jews as a nation, and not for the church, there is no need for the church to be present during the last “seven,” which is the Tribulation.
While there is much to commend this view, I believe that it falls short on several levels. First, it fails to properly distinguish between the Tribulation and the wrath of God. Second, it fails to properly distinguish between the seventieth week of Daniel and the Great Tribulation. Third, and this is true of posttribulationism as well, it fails to provide a plausible identification of the Rapture within the book of Revelation.
The third major view on this issue is midtribulationism. This view is the most historically recent of the three views. In terms of the number of adherents, midtribulationism is really a very minor view when compared the either the pretribulational or posttribulational position. The basic tenet of midtribulationism is that the Rapture of the church will occur in the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week. One of the strengths of this view is that it provides a plausible point of identification of the Rapture in the book of Revelation. Midtribulationism shares some aspects of both pretribulationism and posttribulationism. Like pretribulationism, midtribulationism views the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ as two distinct and chronologically separate events. Also like pretribulationism, midtribulationism understands the seventy “sevens” of Daniel to be seventy literal seven year periods in which God is dealing primarily with Israel. Midtribulationism, however, confines the wrath of God to the last three and one half years of Daniel’s seventieth week. Like posttribulationism, midtribulationism rejects the notion of the signless “any moment” imminence of the Rapture, preferring to live in the tension of passages which describe signs of the Second Coming, and those which command the followers of Christ to be prepared because we do not know when Christ will return. I believe that this view provides the most plausible interpretation of the scriptural teaching on the relationship between the Rapture of the church and the great Tribulation.
Support
There are at least three characteristics of a midtribulational view of the Rapture which I believe make it the most scripturally plausible view. First, a midtribulational view understands the Rapture to be a significant literal event. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, the primary scripture passage which clearly describes the Rapture, clearly indicates that the Rapture will entail that all Christians, alive or dead, be caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air in imperishable resurrection bodies. Both the pretribulational and midtribulational views of the Rapture allow for this to be fulfilled literally. All three Tribulational views maintain that Revelation 19 describes the Second Coming of Christ. There is no indication in that passage of any meeting the Lord in the air. Revelation 19 describes only the descent of Christ to earth to judge his enemies, and avenge the blood of his saints. This is a problem for a posttribulationist understanding of the Rapture. Therefore, the posttribulationist will point to the resurrection in Revelation 20 as the Rapture spoken of in 1 Thessalonians, but that would imply that the Rapture follows the Second Coming, and furthermore eliminates any notion of meeting the Lord in the air. If this is true, it would effectively eliminate any real significance from the doctrine of the Rapture, equating it with the Millennial resurrection. On this point, the pretribulationist and I are in full and hearty agreement.
A second advantage of the midtribulational view is that it rightly distinguishes the Tribulation viewed as a whole from the wrath of God. A point of agreement between the three views is that the church will not be the object of the wrath of God. Indeed, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, and Romans 5:9 clearly indicate that the church will not be the object of the wrath of God. While the posttribulationist understands God to preserve his people through the time of wrath, both the pretribulationist and the midtribulationist understand God to remove his people from that time of wrath. For the latter two positions, the difference lies in when the wrath of God is believed to be made manifest.
According to Paul Feinberg, “it is [the pretribulationists’] contention that the whole, not just a part, of the seventieth week is a time of divine wrath” [emphasis in original] (Feinberg et al. 1984, 58). In other words, the entire seventieth week, which is to be identified as the Great Tribulation that is to come upon the whole world as per Matthew 24:21, Revelation 3:7, and Revelation 7:14, is also to be identified in its entirety with the wrath of God. However, I do not believe that such an identification is justified. First, in Matthew 24:15, Jesus clearly indicates that the Great Tribulation is initiated by the appearance of the abomination of desolation in the Temple as spoken of in Daniel 9:27. According to Daniel, however, this will not happen at the beginning of the seventieth week, but rather in the middle. This indicates that the Great Tribulation spoken of by Jesus is to be located in the last half of the seventieth week. Second, in order to maintain that the entire seven year period is to be identified with the wrath of God, the pretribulationist must hold that all of the judgments described in Revelation are part of the wrath of God. However, this does not necessarily follow either. While in Revelation 6:16-17, after the sixth scroll judgment, the inhabitants of the earth claim that the wrath of God has come, it is not until Revelation 11:18, after the sounding of the seventh trumpet, that we see the wrath of God spoken of by inhabitants of heaven who are able to accurately identify it. Furthermore, the seven bowl judgments are referred to as the “bowls of the wrath of God.” No previous judgments are so identified with the wrath of God. Because of this, the midtribulationist, unlike the pretribulationist, sees no necessity for the removal of the church prior to the second half of the Tribulation, which is identified with the bowl judgments. A midtribulational view of the Rapture allows for a consistently literal interpretation of Revelation with regard to the wrath of God, while at the same time insisting upon the removal of the church from the earth prior to the manifestation of that wrath.
Third, a midtribulational view of the Rapture provides a plausible identification of the Rapture in the book of Revelation, and in so doing provides also a natural and consistent chronology and interpretive framework for Revelation that is simply lacking in both other systems. In a midtribulational view, the Rapture is to be located in Revelation 14:14-16 which says,
Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. And another angel came out of the temple, crying out with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Put in your sickle and reap, for the hour to reap has come, because the harvest of the earth is ripe." Then He who sat on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was reaped.
There are obvious similarities in this passage to Paul’s description of the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. Here we see Jesus coming on the clouds and gathering a harvest to himself. We also hear a loud angelic shout, and the seventh trumpet has just been sounded. All of this seems to indicate that Revelation 14 fulfills 1 Thessalonians 4.
This vision quite likely alludes to Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13. If this identification is correct, then it fits better with Paul’s description of the Rapture than any other passage in Revelation. Some have objected that the word translated “ripe” in verse 15 is normally translated “dried up” or “withered,” and for this reason have believed that this passage can speak only of judgment. It is quite true that the Greek word ἐξηράνθη is normally translated “dried up” or “withered.” However, when one is harvesting a grain crop like wheat, the grain is not ready to harvest until it is completely dry. Otherwise the moisture in the grain will cause it to mold and rot while being stored in the barn. (Today farmers use industrial driers to dry their crops before storage, allowing them to harvest earlier than farmers in the first century.) All this is to say that the use of ἐξηράνθη is fully consistent with identifying Revelation 14:14-16 as the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.
If Revelation 14:14-16 is to be identified as the Rapture, there are several chronological considerations which make a midtribulational interpretation quite plausible. First, it occurs before the wrath of God is poured out upon the earth, thus exempting the church from experiencing the wrath of God; second, it occurs very close to the midpoint of Daniel’s seventieth week; third, it allows the seventh trumpet of Revelation to be identified with the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15; fourth, it allows the word “saints” in Revelation to be understood in its normal New Testament sense as the church; fifth, it allows for the church, the Bride of Christ, to be in Heaven prior to the marriage of the Lamb in Revelation 19, and sixth, it allows time for unbelievers to put faith in Christ after the Rapture, and thus enter into the Millennial kingdom in unresurrected bodies, which is necessary if there is to be death in the Millennial kingdom as foretold in Isaiah 65:20 and corroborated by the fact that death is not destroyed until after the postmillennial battle of Revelation 20.
Unfortunately, space will not permit the examination of each of these points. Therefore, the second point alone will be expounded upon since it is the most vital to the argument for a midtribulational rapture.
In Daniel 9:27, the seventieth week is initiated when “the prince who is to come” establishes a covenant with the Jewish nation. The midpoint of the seventieth week occurs when this prince sets up the abomination of desolation in the temple. According to Jesus in Matthew 24, this initiates the Great Tribulation. The prince of Daniel 9 is normally equated with the Beast who comes out of the sea in Revelation 13. The description of this beast in Revelation 13:1 is identical to the description of the beast who comes out of the abyss in Revelation 17:3 indicating that they are one and the same beast. This is the beast that kills the two witnesses of God in Revelation 11:7. These two witnesses prophesied for 1260 days, or 3.5 years. Likewise, only the outer court of the temple appears to be given to the nations for forty-two months, or 3.5 years in Revelation 11:2. It follows that the 3.5 years in which the witnesses prophesied, and the 3.5 years in which the nations were given only the outer court of the temple, are the same 3.5 years. These are evidently the first 3.5 years of the seventieth week, because the two witnesses are killed by the Beast at the end of this time, an event which marks the transition of authority from the witnesses to the Beast. The execution of the witnesses by the Beast, therefore, initiates the forty-two months of his authority, and therefore coincides with his erection of the abomination of desolation in the temple. These events are set chronologically after the blowing of the sixth trumpet and prior to the blowing of the seventh trumpet, which is blown immediately prior to the events of Revelation 14:14-16, thus placing the Rapture squarely in the middle of the seventieth week.
Objections
The first objection that I will deal with comes from the pretribulational camp. Based on the numerous biblical passages which exhort believers to watch and be alert because we do not know the day or the hour the of the return of Christ, (i.e. Matthew 24:36-39, 42-44, and 50; Matthew 25:13, Mark 13:32-37, Luke 12:40, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and many others) pretribulationists hold to a signless, “any-moment” imminence of the Rapture. All signs, according to the pretribulational view, pertain to the Second Coming rather than the Rapture. This is a vital distinction for the pretribulational argument, because it allows a resolution of the tension between the above passages, and those which clearly refer to signs that must take place before Christ’s return. If we do, in fact, know when Christ will return, how is it that we also do not know? The Rapture, therefore, must be imminent, and devoid of signs indicating its approach, while the Second Coming is not imminent because it is preceded by signs.
In response to this objection, it must be noted that all of the biblical passages cited to support the imminence of the Rapture are immediately preceded by passages which the pretribulationist (and the midtribulationist for that matter) interprets as presenting the signs of the Second Coming. In context, then, the passages which teach imminence must also refer to the Second Coming. If then, the Scriptures teach the imminence of the Second Coming, while at the same time teaching that it will be preceded by signs, is it unlikely that the Rapture be preceded by signs and yet be imminent? No. There is certainly a tension here, but there is also a tension in that the scriptures teach both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. If Scripture teaches both, then we must hold to both in spite of the logical difficulties. Scripture affirms that the Second Coming is both imminent and preceded by signs. The Rapture can, therefore, also be seen as both imminent and preceded by signs.
One of the classic posttribulational arguments against both pretribulationism and midtribulationism is that there is no need for the church to be physically absent from the earth in order to be exempted from the wrath of God. The posttribulationist often points to the distinction made by God in Exodus when the plagues upon Egypt were not visited upon Israel. This, they claim, illustrates how God can exempt his people from his wrath while pouring it out on unbelievers. I do not believe that this is a valid illustration. First, nowhere in Exodus does God claim that He is pouring out His wrath on Egypt. This is in distinct contrast to the bowl judgments in Revelation which are always equated with the wrath of God. Second, the distinction between Israel and Egypt is clearly taught in Exodus, while no such distinction is made during the outpouring of God’s wrath in Revelation. Third, the bowl judgments are specifically contrasted with the trumpet judgments in that the former are said to affect all of their intended objects while the latter are said to affect only one-third of their intended objects. I can see how the church, being physically present, could be exempted from a plague which turns one-third of the water on earth to blood, but I cannot see how anyone could be exempted from a plague which turns all of the water on earth into blood. The nature of the bowl judgments are global and all-encompassing. The only way for the church to be exempted is for the church to be physically absent.
In conclusion, it must be stated that any interpretation of the relationship between the Rapture and the Tribulation is ultimately a matter of discerning scriptural plausibility as opposed to dogmatic certainty. What I have presented here is the view which I believe is the most plausible in that it best harmonizes all that scripture teaches regarding this issue. The Rapture is an issue which we must not allow to become divisive in our churches, and which should be used to encourage believers to suffer well, wait expectantly, and interpret the word of God faithfully, carefully, and in full dependence upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
REFERENCE LIST
Archer, Gleason L., Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, Richard R. Reiter. 1984. The rapture: pre-, mid-, or post-tribulational?. Grand Rapids: Academie Books.
Enns, Paul. 1989. The Moody handbook of theology. Chicago: Moody Press.
Erickson, Millard J. 1998. A basic guide to eschatology: making sense of the millennium. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Geisler, Norman L. 2005. Systematic theology. Vol. 4, Church, last things. Minneapolis: Bethany House.
Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Jones, R. Bradley, 1980. The great tribulation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Ladd, George E. 1978. The last things: an eschatology for laymen. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Lindsey, Hal. 1983. The rapture: truth or consequences. Toronto: Bantam Books.
MacArthur, John. 2007. Because the time is near. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
Pemberton, Owen Richard. 1993. The truth about the rapture of the church. Roswell, GA: Old Rugged Cross Press.
Rosenthal, Marvin. 1990. The Pre-wrath rapture of the church. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Ryrie, Charles C. 1981. What you should know about the rapture. Chicago: Moody Press.
Smith, Chuck. 1980. The tribulation and the church. Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today.
The New American Standard Bible (NAU). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. <BibleWorks, v.8.>.
Walvoord, John F. 1979. The rapture question. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.