Addressed: 5 Reasons
the rapture takes place before the Tribulation:
Argument FOR the rapture: “Belief in an “any-moment” return of Christ… every other view nullifies this. Something always has to happen first, and people say get ready. If something must take place before an event happens, that event is not imminent.” Jas 5:7-9, 1 John 2:28
First, the verses for this argument:
James 5
7 Be patient,
then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the
farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently
waiting for the autumn and spring rains. 8 You too, be patient and
stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9 Don’t grumble
against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The
Judge is standing at the door!
10 Brothers
and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take
the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 As you know, we
count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s
perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The
Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
Here James prescribes patience. There
is then an implied reason for some impatience or desperation. Further
patience recommended is along the lines of a farmer waiting for the
one things that is absolutely crucial to his livelihood, that his
efforts cannot in the least affect, and which will bring him the
thing he most hopes for. So this is the culmination of his hopes and
efforts which he waits for.
The implied reason in the next verses
is their suffering. Like the prophets and Job they are told to endure
so they can see the ultimate end of their hope and suffering in
blessing full of compassion and mercy.
However, despite the imminence of the
Lord’s coming, this doesn’t in and of itself preclude other
events that may precede it which may be of themselves imminent.
1 John 2
28 And now,
dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be
confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
This doesn’t seem to address the
particulars of Jesus’ imminence beyond that we should be ready and
unashamed of our efforts.
The question I have from this argument
of imminence is in outright excluding any antecedent event which
could also be considered part of the main event, or excluding events
which occur with varying intensity or frequency which in and of
themselves cannot lead to an exact prediction of when the main event
occurs, even if they are a recognizable prelude to it.
First you have, Matt 24. V36 has an
explicit “no one knows the day or the hour” which immediately
follows a brief analogy of observing a fig tree to know when the
summer is near. This is after we talk about a time of distress, the
sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky, prior to Christ’s
Second Coming. Moreover, we are told to learn the lesson of the fig
tree (observing branches to understand the general season or time
frame). After a reference to the people of Noah’s day being caught
up to judgment not being aware, we are told to keep watch because
we don’t know the day or the hour. And we are told to be ready,
whenever that comes. The language, in this context, seems especially
given in order to keep us away from the judgment that is coming that
will fall on a less observant world.
So on the one hand, we don’t know the
day or the hour. On the other hand, we are told to keep watch for
signs (already given) so we are not surprised. This sounds like more
than an implication that for the Second Coming, though no one knows
the day or hour, there will be preceding, accompanying signs that
give some deliberate clue as to how near things are.
If giving signs of the times is not
incompatible with not knowing the day or the hour, and its in the
context of this Second Coming with judgment that “we” are told to
watch and be ready, then these are compatible things. So the argument
that any event that could proceed a rapture and negate its imminence
appears hollow in that Matt 24 shows that this is possible with
respect to the Second Coming.
Similarly, Mark 13 is a parallel
passage. In v29: Even so, when you see these things happening, you
know that it[d] is near, right at the door. This is a Second Coming
passage. We are told that “we” will see these things happening,
including the Son of Man coming in the clouds. We are told to be
alert, watching for the Lord’s return and ready, whenever that is.
If there are no preceding signs, we can always be ready, but watching
has no meaning. The fig tree analogy is utterly wrong and the events
told us before in this chapter don’t actually help us.
It sounds like the difference between
us and the world is that they don’t know any of this stuff will
happen. We’re always ready whenever it happens, but when it starts
to happen, even before a rapture event, we’re not surprised by the
events, we know what they signal. We still don’t know the exact day
or the hour, but we know when things are near because we have been
told what to expect.
Admittedly, the larger consequence of
this is that if a rapture is post-Tribulation, that means the whole
host of events in Revelations between Chapter 4 and 20 must precede
the rapture. As many as they are, if the events predicted in Matt 24
do not violate the “no one knows the day or the hour” then I have
to assume if we are given a greater detail of these “days of
distress” that this does not violate that sense of imminence
either. Doesn’t make it easy, but I don’t think the argument of
imminence is enough to force a less natural reading of the primary
scriptures covered above.
Then the 5 argued reasons themselves:
Reason 1:
The church is
specifically exempted from the wrath of God. 1 Thess 5:9, 1 Thess
1:10. This fits perfectly with a pre-Tribulation rapture. The
tribulation events are the unfolding wrath of the Lamb of God.
Agreed, but we have to be careful in
determining what wrath are we spared and how, knowing that there are
different forms of wrath, some directed at people, some in general;
some the church shares because it is in the world along with sinners,
some we don’t (including eternal wrath) because we are redeemed. To
outright say that we are to be spared from God’s wrath, and that
since the Tribulation is God’s outpouring of wrath, we must be
spared that ignores that we suffer from the consequences of God’s
wrath (as per Rom 1) poured on the world for its sin, and even the
Hebrews suffered alongside the Egyptians up to a point in their
plagues.
1 Thess 5:9 should be read in the
context of v8. We are to be sober, putting on love as a breastplate,
and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For/Because God did not
appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord
Jesus Christ.
So you’ve got a contrast between
suffering wrath and salvation through Christ, which is the reason for
our behavior. Does this mean this can’t refer to any impact of
Tribulation wrath which is directed against the world? No. But then,
you have v10 which talks about Christ dying for us so we may live
with him. While it is true generally that, in being saved we are no
longer children of wrath and that Tribulation wrath can’t be
directly applied to us by God, the wrath in view here is more likely
eternal wrath.
Since we still suffer alongside the
world in whatever judgments, acute or general, that God applies to
the world as a consequence of being in it, this passage simply isn’t
telling us enough to give us confidence that we will also be
explicitly spared any presence in the Tribulation.
1 Thess 1:10 also begs the question of
what coming wrath are we saved from? I don’t think enough can be
read from this to explicitly say we will not be present during the
Tribulation wrath. Especially in light of the explicit and implicit
indications that we will from the scriptures above.
Reason 2:
1 Thess 4 Why
didn’t God comfort them in their expected death rather than
promising relief?
Possibly because even to that last
moment, not all of the believers would be dead by the Second Coming
if it coincides with a rapture event. The question is still
essentially speculative.
Reason 3:
Rev 3:10 The promise
to Philadelphia is to keep them (out) from the hour of trial coming on
the whole world to test those who live in the world. Christ didn’t
say they would be preserved through; different language would have
been used.
I don’t think this is a good argument
for the Church being spared the Tribulation period. Firstly, while
the language certainly sounds like we’re talking about Tribulation
trial and testing that comes on the whole earth, the reason
Philadelphia is preserved is conditioned upon their enduring
patience. Their being spared is a reward.
But Philadelphia is one of seven
churches, many of whom are not as warmly received or rewarded.
There’s no indication that other churches will be explicitly
spared. While the letters to the churches may apply to all the church
at all time periods, I think it gets into very complex arguments to
argue either that Philadelphia can represent the whole church which
will be spared, or that the churches must be time periods where, if
Philadelphia is spared the tribulation, so must any subsequent
church. In fact, that still doesn’t work because if the Tribulation
happens after some Philadelpia, that puts Laodicea in the middle
potentially and you’re still back to the original problem that some
Christians endure the Tribulation. So at best, you simply have
Philadelphia being spared, but no other mention.
Reason 4:
The rapture is
for the church. The 7-year Tribulation time is for Israel to be
prepared to receive Christ.
It makes sense from what I’ve long
believed, but that’s not actually a proof. We know Israel is in
focus after Rev 7 but we still don’t have an explicit declaration
that all of the church is gone by then and its only Israel. Really,
you need the church gone by Rev 4 to escape the Seals judgments which
are horrific in and of themselves. Beyond the scene shifting to
heaven which may mean something or nothing, we have no indication of
such an incredible, crucial event for the church.
Reason 4b:
There must be
several events that happen between the rapture and the Second Coming
(e.g. the marriage).
This appears to be derived from the
assumption that a pre-Tribulation rapture occurs around Rev 4, and at
least before Rev 7. So then we get a list of events that happen
between those chapters and Rev 19 where Christ comes in glory. But no
explicit declaration of a rapture appears anywhere before Rev 19, so
it’s an assumption if reasonable. We just don’t have any direct
statement that suggests certain events must happen between a rapture
and the Second Coming in glory/judgment.
Reason 5:
Complete lack of
evidence that the church goes through the Tribulation. Church mention
stops around Rev 6. If the church is meant to go through the
Tribulation, even in part, wouldn’t this be mentioned? Major
troubles in the world aren’t it. We go through those.
With the earlier verses in view, I
think there’s even less evidence that we are explicitly spared this
time period. Another problem is distinguishing Church from believing
Israel. It’s still all one salvation (and so all Israel will be
saved). We are no more/less the Church than the original Israeli
believers. When the focus returns to Israel are they any more/less
the Church when they turn to God? What we know is that there are
believers after Rev 7. We’re only talking about Jewish believers at
that point as God’s focus comes back to Israel. But you need some
explicit statement to rule out any Gentile believers left. Most may
have been raptured up, most killed prior to this, most may have
slowly died off prior, but I don’t think this is conclusive one way
or another. Again, the focus is now back on Israel, fulfilling Rom
11. The Gentile period of the church is clearly over. In the same way
that Gentiles were not really in focus during Jesus’ ministry
despite some forays in Samaria and the Gaderenes, maybe it’s not
strange that the Gentile Church is no longer in focus by Rev 8.
Again, I think something more explicit is needed to rule out any
Gentile believers in this period.
A Parallel:
Parallel between
pre-tribulation rapture and customs of Jewish wedding. Bride and
groom remain hidden from view of those on earth for 7 days, then are
married and show themselves in glory.
I really like this parallel. But it’s
also a parallel. It works as long as the underlying verses
demonstrate conclusively that the church is gone before those 7
years. But if that interpreting isn’t right, then the Jewish
tradition can’t prove anything. We’d need something along the
lines of, for example, type/antitype where temple sacrifices are
declared to foreshadow Christs, or that Hagar or Sarah demonstrate
the relationship between covenants.
No comments:
Post a Comment