The clearest articulation for the rapture of saved believers is the following:
“29But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” (Matthew 24:29-31)
This is what is known as “the Olivet Discourse”, which is also recorded in Mark 13:24-25 and Luke 21:24-27 and Luke 21:25-28. It should be noted that this is what Jesus answered when asked “…what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3). Probably the biggest question His disciples had when they were asking this, is the same question we have – what’s going to happen to us? What is going to happen to those who are His followers, all saved believers. Clearly Jesus answers that question here, putting it all in the context of what we now call end time prophecy.
The ”day of the Lord” Distortions
Part of that context is the “day of the Lord” prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, especially Joel and Isaiah, with which they would have been familiar:
30“I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire, and columns of smoke.
31“The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.” (Joel 2:30-21)
“9Behold, the day of the Lord is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it.10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light. 11 Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity;…13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the Lord of hosts In the day of His burning anger.” (Isaiah 13:9-13)
Furthermore, according to Zechariah:
“Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’S anger; And all the earth will be devoured by the fire of His jealousy, for He will make a complete end, indeed a horrifying one, of all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Zechariah 1:18)
Certainly, those listening to Him then, as those who know the scripture now, would recognize exactly what Jesus was referring to as that most salient event in all human history, when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” Just as we see repeated several times in the New Testament, it is that future day of Judgment on the whole world, consistently referred to as “the day of the Lord”. Today it is referred to as “the second coming of Christ”.
“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.” (2 Peter 3:10 ESV)
“12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” (Revelation 6:12-17)
Certainly, we see from the obvious connection with the passage in Revelation six, which is the sixth Seal of Revelation, that it is indeed about that second coming of Christ, which there is referred to as “the great day of their wrath”. Similarly, this sixth Seal is identified with the seventh Trumpet (Rev. 11:15-19) and the seventh Bowl (Rev. 16:17-21) where we see the same climactic catastrophic cosmic and terrestrial events occurring (unless one can believe that they are to occur several times representing 3 or 4 days of the Lord or days of the Lord’s wrath, each being catastrophic to the earth – not a very realistic or believable scenario).
But here we also see the beginning of the distortions of literal scripture by those who have come up with their own interpretations, based on some doctrinal presuppositions. This “day of the Lord”, is clearly defined by its appearance at least 24 times in scripture – if we were to actually let scripture interpret scripture. But these men have decided that they have a better definition. Instead of that day of judgment when God’s wrath is being poured out on the unsaved world, as per all those 24 passages, they tell us it is really about a whole 7 year period which they call the 7-year Tribulation Period (which is itself extra-biblical terminology, though in scripture it is referred to as the 70th week of Daniel, which is a 7 year period, half of which is called “the time of Great Tribulation”). In fact, many of them define it as not only referring to the whole 7-year Tribulation Period, but also include the thousand-year Millennium as well – that perfect Edenic era of Christ’s reign on earth:
“…the term Day of the Lord, or that day, is not a term which applies to a twenty-four hour period, but rather the whole program of events, including the Tribulation Period, the second advent program, and the entire millenial age.” (D. Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 174).
Similarly, John Walvoord:
“In describing the period of judgment as a day of wrath, reference is not made to a twenty-four-hour day but to a time period longer or shorter. The day of wrath in one sense is the whole period of the great tribulation … The day of wrath is at the beginning of the day of the Lord …” (John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 137-138).
Again “the day of the Lord” as it is used in 1 Thessalonians five, is given by former Dallas Theological Seminary professor Thomas Constable, as follows:
“The day of the Lord is a future period of time in which God will be at work in world affairs more directly and dramatically than He has been since the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a time referred to by many Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 13:9-11; Joel 2:28-32; Zeph. 1:14-18; 3:14-15). As those and other Old Testament verses indicate, the day of the Lord will include both judgment and blessing. That day begins immediately after the Rapture of the church and ends with the conclusion of the Millennium. This day is a major theme of prophecy with its fullest exposition in Revelation 6-19.” (Thomas Constable, “1 Thessalonians”, The Bible Knowledge Commentary – An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Victor Books, 1983, p. 705 (highlight added))
Here we see several statements that cry out for substantiation from scripture. First there is the statement that this “day of the Lord will include both judgment and blessing.” Dr. Constable has failed to note a critical distinction which is made in scripture between the “day of the Lord,” and the restoration of Israel. He correctly cites Zephaniah 1:14-18 as a cross reference, but throws in 3:14-15 where not only is the “day of the Lord” not mentioned, but neither is it in view at all. In the passages dealing with this day of God’s judgment, the closest the prophet gets to mentioning a blessing is found in Zephaniah 2:3: “Before the day of the Lord’s anger comes upon you, seek the Lord, … perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger.” (Zephaniah 2:2d-3). In fact this warning about this day of God’s judgment (which is called here “the day of the Lord”) is concluded in Zephaniah 3:8 where it speaks of “all the earth” being “devoured by the fire of My Zeal”, which clearly corresponds to other passages such as 2 Peter 3:10. The rest of Zephaniah’s prophecy goes on to deal with what follows after this “day of the Lord”, the restoration that will come after the judgment (a reoccurring pattern in the apocalyptic prophecies) – which is clearly not simultaneous with that day of judgment on the earth. This period of restoration is what John reveals in Revelation as the millennial reign of Christ on earth.
Again, we have to ask, where is the scriptural authority for such a strange and awkward interpretation of the word “day”? None of these scholars provide any, or refer to any passage that would support this rather forced interpretation of the phrase. While it is true that it is not necessary to understand the word “day” to mean a twenty-four-hour period of present earthly time, it clearly does not indicate a whole age of over 1000 years. When the phrase “day of the Lord” is used in other passages, which they do say have already been fulfilled in history, they interpret it as a rather brief event happening suddenly at a certain point in time. Never is it understood to refer to a whole era. Nor would anyone suggest that Isaiah was writing about an age which included both blessing and judgment in Isaiah 13:6 & 9, or that Joel meant anything other than a day of severe judgment in Joel 1 and 2. How inconsistent to decide that the word “day” here suddenly means a whole era, or that the expression “day of the Lord” as it appears in any scripture passage, includes a brief time of judgment but on the balance a long era of blessing and bliss. Such interpretations can only come from the reader’s presuppositions, forcing certain select passages of scripture to fit into a preconceived scenario – such as the Dispensationalist’s Pretribulation Rapture (PTR) theory. When God tells us about an age, He refers to it as an age, or tells us how long it will be as in the case of the Millennium. In the case of this present period in which we are living it is called the “this age” (1 Cor. 2:6-8; Eph. 1:21) or the “time of the Gentiles,” (Luke 21:24) not the “day” of the Gentiles. However, the word “day” is used many times to refer to a specific period of God’s judgment which in each case was, or is to occur at a specific point in time, taking a limited period of time closer to a day than an age, or a millennium.
Most theologians and Bible commentators who subscribe to the Pre-tribulation Rapture view seem to share Dr. Constable’s and Dr. Pentecost’s definition of this term, “the Day of the Lord,” – that it refers to a long period of time beginning with the advent of the 70th week of Daniel (for which they have adopted the term “the tribulation period”), and ending after the Millennial reign of Christ on earth, after the Gog/Magog rebellion. Supposedly (according to Pentecost) others say it begins with the second coming of Christ in judgment, and ends after the Millennium. Both views would include the period of 1000 years of the most blissful and perfect life on this earth that the world has ever seen since creation, as part of this “day of the Lord.” And in fact, the former and seemingly more popular view would include the whole seventieth week of Daniel.
Famous novelist Tim LaHaye et al. makes the assertion that:
“Sometimes this phrase does refer to the glorious appearing, but on other occasions it encompasses the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the glorious appearing.” (Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting the End Times, p. 108).
Interestingly, while Mr. LaHaye does admit to being inconsistent in his interpretation of this key phrase, he fails to cite any of the other passages to which he glibly refers, where the Rapture, the Tribulation (by which he means the 70th week of Daniel), and the “glorious appearing” (by which he means the second coming of Christ), are all indicated by that same phrase. Nor can they be found without heavy doses of forced interpretation, reading into the various texts certain doctrinal presuppositions. Nevertheless, he does admit that at least sometimes it is only referring to the “glorious appearing,” from which we glean that it does not bother him that his approach to interpreting this phrase is quite inconsistent. [1]
[ [1] In fairness, Tim LaHaye includes in his book The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (LaHaye and Ed Hindson general editors) an article by Richard L Mayhue, in which he makes a distinction between this “day of the Lord” being “God’s judgment of sin”, and “the blessings of God’s reign” which “are subsequent to and a result of the day of the Lord, but they are not part of it.” He does identify “two periods of the day of the Lord” which “are yet to be fulfilled on earth; (1) the judgment that climaxes the Tribulation Period (2 Thessalonians 2:2; Revelation 16-18) and (2) the consummating judgment of this earth that ushers in the new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 20:7-21:1).” This would seem to reflect either a change in LaHaye’s thinking, or considerable confusion on his part.]
Furthermore, these interpretations being put forth by Walvoord, Pentecost, and Constable, and most of those who subscribe to the Pretribulation Rapture view, feature several other apparent contradictions, both scripturally and logically. These include the following:
- the timing of the destruction of the current heavens and earth and the recreation of the new heaven and earth with respect to the second coming and the establishment of the Millenial kingdom of God on earth;
- the Post-millennial developments and events, such as the general resurrection of “the rest of the dead” (Revelation 20:5), the Gog rebellion, and God’s final judgment on the earth (Revelation 20:7-9);
- Who will initially enter into that Millenial kingdom;
- Who will follow Satan and Gog in rebellion against God, and ultimately be destroyed in that judgment on Gog and his followers;
All of these related distortions of scripture and logical contradictions (which are beyond the scope of this discussion) become necessary to be consistent with their manufactured interpretations of these key phrases, “the day of the Lord” and “the day of wrath”, or “the day of the Lord’s wrath”.
However, the first glaring contradiction shows up in their self-contradictory interpretations with respect to this key passage, the main subject of this whole discussion, Matthew 24:29-31, cited above. The PTR advocates, especially those cited above, all do recognize this passage as referring to the same “day” as that referred to in the other passages cited above – that day of judgment when the catastrophic cosmic events will occur, when “ the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (Matt. 24:29). Thus, they correctly tell us that this is about the second coming of Christ, which will not happen until the end of the 7-year Tribulation Period, or the end of the 3 ½ year “time of Great Tribulation”. This is based on an accurate interpretation of that key phrase, “the day of the Lord” if we are letting scripture interpret scripture, as discussed above. Indeed, the rapture being described there is to occur when Christ returns, at the second coming, at the end of the Tribulation Period – i.e. what we call Post-tribulational.
However, as we have seen from the several quotations cited above from these same men, that “day of the Lord” is defined by them as being the whole 7-year Tribulation Period, and for most includes the 1000-year Millenial reign of Christ in the earthly Kingdom of God. So, taking their definition then, this passage in Matthew is saying that “immediately after the tribulation of those days” this day of the Lord, meaning the whole 7-year Tribulation Period, is when Christ comes and gathers together His elect, the saved believers. On the one hand they are arguing that the rapture described here cannot be the rapture of the church, but has to be a rapture only of those saved at the end of the 7-year Tribulation Period. On the other hand, they are also arguing that this “day of the Lord” is the whole 7-year Tribulation Period, which would mean it can’t be referring to the final day at the end of that whole period. Or in other words, they have Jesus telling us that the whole Tribulation Period is going to happen after the Tribulation Period (which is probably why LaHaye is so inconsistent in his definition as cited above – he needs to have it both ways). If such is the case, then it can’t truly be said that God is not the author of confusion – which is one reason to realize that such is not the case. This is one distortion involved in reaching or defending their PTR conclusions.
If on the other hand, we stay with the definition of the “day of the Lord” which comes from letting scripture interpret scripture, we have no contradiction but it make perfect sense: “immediately after the Tribulation of those days [i.e. the 7-year Tribulation Period, and/or the 3 ½ year period of Great Tribulation], that day of the Lord second coming of Christ occurs – at the end of that period – when He will be seen coming in the clouds to rapture out His followers, “the elect”. This makes eminently more sense, even according to their own interpretation of this passage.
“The Church is not in Matthew 24” Distortion – The Dispensational Hermeneutic
However, we then encounter another rather glaring distortion in their interpretation:
“The church is not present in any sense in chapters 24 and 25. The disciples questions related to Jerusalem, Israel, and the Lord’s second coming in glory to establish His kingdom.” (Constable, p. 76)
Some men actually go so far as to try to tell us that Matthew is actually written to and about Israel, not the church (Constable seems to almost imply this in his introduction to the book, saying “Matthew primarily had Jews in mind when he wrote…”). Yet the same men apply most of the rest of the book to us today, the church, until they get to this 24th and 25th chapter. Where is this coming from? What is there in Matthew, or in any other passage of scripture which is telling us, or even implying, that these two chapters are different from all the rest of the Gospels? Interestingly enough we see almost the same account given in Mark – are we supposed to believe that Mark was mostly written for Jews, and the church is not in Mark 13? Again, where is this most important revelation, changing the meaning of the texts involved, articulated in inspired scripture?
Most of these men just expect us to believe it because they are telling us it is so. Constable goes on in his commentary to give us the following rationale:
“Clearly the church, the body of Christ, cannot be in view in these statements. The Lord was not describing the rapture, for the removal of the church will not be a judgment on the church. If this were the Rapture, as some commentators affirm, the Rapture would have to be Posttribulational, for this event occurs immediately before the Lord’s return in glory. But that would conflict with a number of scriptures and present other problems that cannot be elaborated on here (c.f., e.g. comments on 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and Rev. 3:10).
Here we see that instead of actually giving us scripture which supports this interpretation, or presupposition, he just states his doctrinal position as if it was proven fact – which is decidedly is not. The 1 Thessalonians passage, to which he parenthetically refers, when taken out of its context of 5:1-11, only describes what he recognizes as the rapture of the church. However, when kept in context of the following verses, clearly connects it with the judgment of His second coming. The Revelation 3:10 passage requires very flawed exegesis of the wording (the key word “ek”) to support his point. It seems that if he had at least one other scripture to which he could appeal it would not be too difficult to at least elaborate on it that much here. But in fact, there aren’t any without the similar kind of “elaboration” on them, i.e. manipulation of them, as we see him doing here on this passage.
However, another well-known advocate of this interpretation, does divulge the secret to understanding all these relevant passages the way they do, to find some support for their PTR view:
“Pretribulation rapturism rests essentially on one major premise – the literal method of interpretation of the Scriptures. As a necessary adjunct to this, the pretribulationist believes in a dispensational interpretation of the Word of God.” (Pentecost, Things to Come, XIII, I., p. 193. Emphasis added).
Here we have the explanation, which actually should be seen as an admission, or a confession, though those who subscribe to it don’t recognize it as such. It is however admitting the fact that the literal method of interpretation is not enough, to get to their PTR conclusions. This is a very true statement. He even honestly discloses what his presuppositions are, which he calls “a necessary adjunct”. Certainly, as articulated above, their interpretations of Matthew 24 do not come from a literal interpretation of not only that passage, but any other passage in scripture. But, when interpreted in light of the necessary adjunct of Dispensational Theology, then we get the interpretations necessary to support the PTR view. But perhaps one should ask, what are those presuppositions, and are they actually supported by literal scripture, as in letting scripture interpret scripture?
Dispensationalism, as a framework, an approach to understanding and interpreting scripture is for the most part quite helpful, especially when it comes to end times prophecy. It begins with the assumption that God has chosen to deal with men different ways during different periods of time, demarcated by different covenants He made with them, some explicit, others more implied by how He chose to relate to them. This covenantal aspect is largely in agreement with the main competing school of Theology known as Covenant Theology, but with some major differences, which are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, briefly, according to Dispensationalism there are 7 (some say 8) periods of time or “dispensations” in which God has chosen to deal differently with men, which do correspond to the various covenants He has made with men. But contrary to Covenant Theology they are not all perpetual. Thus, for example, the age of the Law, under the Mosaic Covenant, ended with the beginning of the age of Grace, which is also the Church age or dispensation, and that age ends with the beginning of a literal 1000-year or Millenial reign of Christ on earth. Covenant theologians believe this church age actually includes the Old Testament saints and never ends, many if not most believing we are currently in that so-called Millenial reign of Christ on earth now – the thousand years being interpreted symbolically.
However, a major part of this theological debate is about the differences between Israel and the church in God’s economy, or how He relates to them each, in each of the different eras. While Covenant Theology would maintain that what was God’s people or nation Israel in the Old Testament era, becomes the church in the New Testament with no real distinction between them with respect to God’s relationship or dealing with them (this is referred to by some as “Replacement Theology” or “Supersessionism”, though Covenant Theologians reject such labels preferring “Fulfillment Theology” or “an expansion of Israel” to describe their position). Dispensationalists maintain that God has a program for His chosen people Israel (the Jews), and a program for the church. While both Jew and Gentile believers become one in the church, that church age began with the day of Pentecost, and comes to an end when Christ returns (some say at the rapture of the church before the Tribulation Period begins, others say after the Tribulation Period at what they call the second coming of Christ). After that comes the Millenial Kingdom age or Dispensation, which resumes God’s program with Israel.
Curiously most Dispensationalists do not identify the 7-year Tribulation Period as a separate Dispensation from the Church age (a Dr. Edwin Hartill [2] being an exception with his 8 dispensations), but do subscribe to another so-called Dispensational adjunct, or presupposition, that said church age is only for Israel, does not involve the church at all. This then becomes the “Dispensational distinctive” which justifies, and in fact makes necessary Dr.s Constable, Pentecost, and Walvoord’s as well as LaHaye’s interpretation of our text in Matthew 24. According to that doctrinal presupposition the church must be raptured before that time when the church age ends, and God’s program for Israel resumes. Thus, the dogmatically emphasized declarations, “the church is not in the Tribulation Period”, leading to “the church is not in Matthew 24-25”, as well as “the church is not in Revelation 6-19”. If in fact these doctrinal statements, which are the presuppositions giving rise to their interpretations, were actually stated in scripture, there probably would be little if any debate, and in fact no need for the volumes of argumentation on the subject, or for that matter this whole article – it would amount to “God says it, that settles it”. But such is not the case. However, it does tell us about the power of indoctrination and presuppositions to affect how men perceive and thus interpret what they hear and read.
[ [2] Dr. Edwin Hartill, D.D., was professor of Bible at Northwestern College, Minneapolis MN, author of Principles of Hermeneutics, 1947, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1978.]
Dispensational interpretations began to surface and be taken seriously around the time Jews were becoming Zionists and were returning to their original homeland of Israel, which was mid 19th century. The mainstream church had largely abandoned the literal method of interpreting prophetic scripture going back to at least St. Augustine in the 4t-5th century, who is credited for coming up with the Allegorical approach to interpreting scripture, a non-literal approach. That same approach was continued with the later Protestant reformers such as John Calvin. This made eminent sense after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the dissolution of the state of Israel becoming renamed Syria Palestina by Emperor Hadrian in AD 132-135, and the ensuing dispersion of the Jews around the world – for centuries there was no Israel or Jerusalem to fulfill all the end time prophecy. However, when students of scripture, such as John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren saw Israel becoming a people and a nation again, they dispensed with the Allegorical approach, and began interpreting scripture literally again, understanding it from a futurist’s perspective. Unfortunately, as men tend to do, they carried it to unwarranted extremes, adding their own human contributions to the actual teaching of literal scripture, giving us the doctrinal presupposition that the 70th week of Daniel, which is now called the “Tribulation Period”, will only be for God’s cleansing and purging and judging His people Israel. This meant that the church had to be gone already by that time – hence, the Pretribulation Rapture.
Now the bold claim by the PTR advocates is that all scripture supports this view. When asked to produce such scripture they come up with passages which support all kinds of other biblical truths, including salvation by grace, the 7-year tribulation period, the rapture and resurrection of the church, and the second coming of Christ to judge the world, and the fact that the church will not go through the outpouring of the Lord’s wrath – all certainly biblically true, but none of which makes their case for a rapture before a 7-year period of Tribulation which ends with the second coming of Christ to earth. However, they then interpret some of these passages to conform to their Dispensational distinctives, or adjunct, (a priori presuppositions), such that those manipulated passages support those presuppositions and ensuing conclusions – this is what is known as the logic fallacy of circular reasoning, or arguing from one’s premise, not to mention considerable violations of rules of interpretation (Hermeneutics) and exegesis.
Getting back to our text in Matthew, if one does not accept the doctrinal presupposition that the church is not in this Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, any more than the rest of Matthew, or Mark, or for that matter Revelation, then it certainly appears as though verses 29-31 are describing the rapture of the church – the one and only rapture in the Bible. One also learns that this rapture is going to happen in conjunction with the “day of the Lord”. Letting scripture interpret scripture one would see that this is the same event prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, as well as the several passages about that “day of the Lord” in the New Testament. It is located for us temporally by the parallel passage in Revelation 6, especially the 6th Seal of 6:12-17. Furthermore, by letting these other passages speak for themselves, without the blinders of the doctrinal presuppositions, the Dispensational distinctives, one would discover that not only is this description of the rapture not Pretribulational, but it is actually at the end of that Tribulation period, i.e. Pre-wrath. It is to save His church from that day of the Lord’s wrath (which one would also discover is not the whole 7-year Tribulation Period, and certainly not including the 1000 year Millenium).
Exegetical Distortions – key word “elect”
But for those who subscribe to those Dispensational presuppositions as being in and of themselves true, this passage in Matthew, while it clearly is a rapture of the “elect”, cannot be about the rapture of the church. But now this requires another distortion of scripture. Since it tells us that it is the “elect” which are being raptured, but also clearly tells us that it happens after the tribulation of those days, we have to redefine what it means by “the elect”, since it clearly is happening at the end of the Tribulation Period at the second coming of Christ. Now for the unindoctrinated honest truth seeker it would be a no-brainer – just look up how this word “elect” is used in scripture and from that define what it must mean here. It is the Greek word “eklektous” (ἐκλεκτοὺς), which is also translated “chosen ones”. The same word appears two other times in this chapter (vs. 22 & 24), and twice more in Matthew (20:16 & 22:14). In none of those passage can it be said that it is not about the church, those who are followers of Christ in any age, unless one has adopted the presuppositions discussed above, that the church is not in Matthew 24. It appears 16 times in the NASB2000 in reference to the church, called God’s chosen ones. A closely related word, “eklogē” (ἐκλογὴ) does appear 3 times in Romans 11, verse 5, 7 and 28, where it is about Jews, but they too are saved Jews which are as much a part of the church as any saved Gentiles (although 11:28 may be about those saved Jews in the future Millenial kingdom). In none of the other passages is there any indication that the word refers to anything other than believers who are Christ’s followers, which we call the church. However, because of, and only because of the PTR presuppositions, that it can’t be the church because it is happening after the Tribulation of those days, and the church is already gone by then, in this one case of Matthew 24:31 the word “elect” must be somebody other than the church. So according to some (such as D. Pentecost) it has to be saved Jews (because the “elect” in the Old Testament is Israel) and to others only those who come to Christ during that Tribulation Period, Jews and Gentiles. While such explanations are plausible they certainly do not come from this text, nor any other text, but are being read into the text, which is called eisegesis (a violation of recognized exegetical principles).
Glaring Omission Discrepancy
However, even if we accept such explanations of the rapture referred to in 29-31as a second rapture at the second coming of Christ, 7 years after the first rapture, we have a number of other problems that have to be similarly explained away. First, how is it that Jesus in answering the questions being asked, made no mention of what would happen to His followers, the church? Dr. Constable makes the statement that the questions His disciples asked were only about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and the sign of the Lord’s coming at the end of the Age, which he interprets as only relating “ to Jerusalem, Israel, and the Lord’s second coming”. From this he infers that “they have nothing to do with the church”, thus “the church is not present in any sense in chapters 24 and 25”.
However, realistically, knowing what they knew from the Old Testament prophecies, in particular the “day of the Lord” prophecies, they surely wanted some explanations as to what they should be watching for, to know when the end for them was near. From some of those prophecies, they knew that God promised there would be some who would escape, and survive all those horrible judgments on the unsaved unbelievers, that God’s people would be saved and restored and avenged (as per Obadiah 1:17, Isaiah 4:2-3, Joel 2:32, Zephaniah 3 and Zechariah 12-14). So, what had to be very much on their minds was not just when it was all going to happen, but what would happen to them, as followers of Jesus. And to that end, they wanted to know what would be the promised sign that it actually was the day of the Lord and His return to save them from the impending judgment. Nowhere did they restrict their question to just Jews or Jerusalem or Israel, nor did Jesus restrict His answer to that narrow view, as Constable surmises.
Of course, these Jewish believers did not know anything about Dispensationalism, nor anything about a rapture of the church versus a second coming, which was what Jesus was just beginning to teach them about in this Olivet Discourse. But it is unreasonable to think that their questions could have involved discernment on any of those issues, since we don’t find them revealed in the Old Testament prophecies. On the other hand, just because they didn’t even know what questions to ask is no indication that Jesus wouldn’t be answering those questions they didn’t know to ask, the questions that were most relevant to them, and by extension to us, the church today.
It is at best a very weak argument to say that the answer Jesus gave to the disciples questions would have to have been limited to the narrow scope of those questions asked in ignorance of the future realities. Jesus of course did know the whole story, could see the whole picture, as well as perceiving what they really wanted to know and what was most relevant to them, as well as to us today. So, He gave them the first revelation about the whole end times scenario, which we see expanded upon and defined further in detail in the rest of the New Testament, especially in Revelation. What He told them then in the first 28 verses of chapter 24 parallels the vision of the six seals in Revelation 6, which introduced them to the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel, now referred to as the 7-year Tribulation Period, leading up to that final “day of wrath” of Revelation 6:17. From that divine perspective, Jesus did know about the church, and what was going to happen to the church, in relation to all these other end times developments and events. He saw His disciples, as well as all of us who are his followers now, as the church – which included Jews (like the original disciples) who became followers of Christ, as well as Gentiles. So, in answering their somewhat naïve questions He was giving them the full answer, which of course had to include and involve the church.
John in his gospel, as well as his epistles of 1 John and 2 John, never uses the word “church” (ekklēsia (ἐκκλησίᾳ)) to refer to the church, but we do see it referred to throughout the New Testament as “the elect”. Its use here, as in virtually every other occurrence in the New Testament, is a reference to the church. And in fact, the real question that is most relevant, and most needed to know the answer to, is what is going to happen to the church, the elect, in those end times. The strange insistence that the church is not in this Olivet Discourse, is saying that Jesus either chose to ignore, or overlooked giving the answer to that most important question. It is to say that Jesus only told us about His coming to judge the world at the end of the Tribulation period, but never even mentioned the rapture of His church – i.e. He only tells them about the rapture of those who were left behind when He came to gather his bride to meet Him in the air. If such were true, then we would have to question what Paul was referring to in 1Thessalonians 4:15-17 (the passage they do recognize as about the rapture of the church), when he wrote, “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord”. The reality is that Paul was referring to our text in Matthew 24:29-31 or Mark 13:24-27, what Jesus told us about that rapture of the church – not just Tribulation Saints that are somehow separate and distinct from the church.
The answer which is given to this to this apparent discrepancy of what would be a glaring omission on Jesus part, if indeed the church is not in the Olivet Discourse, is that He did mention it in John 14:
“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:1-2)
This is pretty typical of the kinds of arguments coming from the PTR camp. It is a rather vague promise which can be taken to imply a rapture of the church sometime, but unlike the account in the synoptic Gospels is not really a prophecy dealing with that subject. It certainly tells us nothing about when this will happen and whether or not it is actually a rapture, or about the resurrection, or both. Such an answer is more like a diversion to redirect our attention away from the fact that Jesus did answer these very relevant questions in His Olivet Discourse, and if we fail to recognize it as such then that leaves us with a glaring omission in fully answering the questions about what will happen and when. As Paul wrote in his letter specifically answering this key question about the rapture of the church, related to the Tribulation Period, “Let no one in any way deceive you …” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). There he gives again a very and unequivocal answer, which very much agrees with the natural literal interpretation of our text in Matthew 24:
“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 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, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thessalonian 2:1-5)
Needless to say, the PTR interpretation of this passage is again as distorted as their interpretation of Matthew 24, with some of the same mistakes. Again, we have Dallas Theological Seminary professor Dr. Constable, giving us commentary on this passage. It is actually hard to believe that something so clear could be so misconstrued to say almost the opposite of what it so clearly says. First, he admits that the first verse is about the rapture of the church – which is clearly then the subject of the rest of the passage. But the distortions begin with the next verse where it is clear that Paul is referring to this rapture event as “the day of the Lord” (discussed above). However, introducing this passage he begins with stating his doctrinal presuppositions, which then determines how he interprets the rest of what is written:
“The day of the Lord is the period of history mentioned repeatedly in the Old Testament during which God will bring judgment and blessing on the people of the earth in a more direct, dramatic, and drastic way than ever before …From other New Testament revelation concerning this period of time it is believed that this will begin after the Rapture of the church, and will include the Tribulation and the Millennium.” (Constable, 2 Thessalonians, The Bible Knowledge Commentary – New Testament, p. 717).
Again, similar to his commentary on Matthew 24, he appeals to “other New Testament revelation” but doesn’t even give us any references, but instead asserts his beliefs. Couched in this loaded statement is the distortion of the definition of the day of the Lord as being a 1007 year period – for which there is no corroborating scripture, but instead passages that contradict this “belief”, as discussed above. After a very speculative explanation about what the deception was that these Thessalonicans were worried about, and what they were thinking, that they thought they were already in the day of the Lord (assuming they had the same mistaken interpretation as he and his PTR colleagues have today) he makes the following assertion:
“It is clear that Paul had taught them a pretribulation Rapture. Their confusion was because they could not distinguish their present troubles from those of the day of the Lord.”
The astute student of scripture should ask, where do we find such teachings articulated by Paul? This passage along with that in chapter 4-5 of his previous letter to them, are the primary passages in which he deals with this subject. Without the PTR revisionism and distortions they actually tell us that the Rapture will be Pre-wrath, but Posttribulational, as is “the day of the Lord”. However, by an intellectual sleight of hand he is changing the subject from the rapture of the church of verse 1, to the “day of the Lord”, which he has deceptively defined by his as the whole Tribulation Period and the Millenium. Thus, it is now just the judgments associated with the second coming, which is the subject being addressed. So now he has Paul only telling them that it is the second coming which Paul is writing about, not the Rapture of the church. It is that Post-tribulational return of Christ in judgment which won’t happen until after the great apostasy, and what even he recognizes as “the abomination of desolation” event in which the Antichrist sets himself up as God, and desecrates the temple – which he knows happens at the midpoint of the 7-year Tribulation Period.
The deceptive part is that Paul has not changed the subject at all, but he is still talking about the Rapture of the church, as he stated in the first verse. And very clearly, he is again identifying that Rapture of the church with the day of the Lord – because as we see from all the other related passages, it is part of that prophesied terminal event of that Tribulation Period. Thus, what is so clearly a Posttribulation Pre-wrath revelation, Dr. Constable manages to invert to support his Pre-tribulational Rapture presuppositions. However, again, as with Matthew 24, if one just reads the inspired words, and lets them speak for themselves, the truth is not really confused or confusing – its what Jesus called “He that hath an ear let him hear”.
The “Imminence” message distortion
But the distortions don’t end there with 29-31. They continue to arise as we go through the rest of this 24th chapter of Matthew, starting with the interpretation of verses 32-36:
“32 Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)
One of the doctrines which is central to the whole PTR view is known as the doctrine of “Imminence”. Perhaps the most well-known advocate of the Pretribulation Rapture Theory of our day, Tim LaHaye (author of the “Left Behind” series) et. al., gives the following definition or explanation for this argument in his Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy:
“The term ‘imminence’ (or imminency) as applied to the rapture of the church means that Christ may return at any moment for His church, and no biblically predicted event must necessarily precede it…. It may occur at any time and that it is the next predicted even in God’s prophetic timetable. … In addition, one cannot know precisely when an imminent event will occur. Thus, one should be prepared for it to occur at any moment. Imminent does not mean ‘soon’; the word ‘soon’ implies that it must occur within a short time or within a specified time, which destroys the concept of imminence. The rapture of the church has been imminent since the days of the New Testament, but it clearly was not ‘soon’ at that time.” (LaHaye, Tim and Hindson, Ed, General Editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, Imminence”; Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 2004, p. 144.)
The reality is that none of these men, LaHaye included, actually believe this, or hold to it consistently in their interpretations of prophecy. They all recognize, for example, the many end time prophecies, both Old and New Testament, which feature the nation Israel, and Jerusalem, as the center of attention of those prophecies, which must be fulfilled before Christ will return. Yet they also all know that Israel did not even exist as a nation from the early 2nd century to the mid-20th century, meaning even a Pretribulational rapture of the church could not have occurred over all that history of the church age. That they know and believe this is evidenced by their universal agreement on the fact that seeing such prophetic events and developments occur, especially Israel becoming a nation again with Jerusalem as her capital, are signs of the time that Christ return to rapture the church is near. So, what happened to “any time” since Christ’s first advent with no prophetic events needing to be fulfilled before He could return? It is of course, as is so often the case, simply another obvious contradiction in their theories and explanations.
However, to the extent that Christ’s return is imminent, this passage in Matthew 24:32 and following, is perhaps the clearest articulation of this concept, to the extent that it is biblical. Jesus is clearly telling us that nobody knows the day or the hour when this return of Christ is going to happen, but He is also saying that we will know the season – like the signs of spring letting us know summer is very near. The signs He is referring to are all those things identified in the preceding verses, 1-28, which are describing the Tribulation Period, up to the “day of the Lord” event of vs. 29. These things he identifies there in that passage are the very things that all futurists, including the Dispensational Pretribulationists, point to as signs that we are seeing fulfilled which tell us we are in those last days Jesus was warning us about.
But at the same time, the PTR advocates tell us that this isn’t even for us, or about us the church, because it is only about the second coming of Christ, which won’t happen until 7 years after we, the church, will be gone – raptured. So, if we accept their premise, this whole Olivet Discourse is really only about, and thus relevant to, those who are not part of the church, but will be left behind at the rapture. Again, Constable (cited above) repeats the mantra: “the church is not present in any sense in chapters 24 and 25”. According to him, it will only be about “those who will be redeemed in the Tribulation … the elect of this Church Age will have already been raptured before the Tribulation.” (Constable, p. 76 & 77). As discussed above, what is entirely missing in this whole chapter is anything telling us that, unlike all the other passages in Matthew which are to and about the church, these two chapters now are not about the church – which would really mean they are just informational but the exhortations are irrelevant to the church. Ironically, many PTR pastors still try to use this passage to emphasize a sense of imminence, which it is clearly designed to do, while at the same time agreeing with Constable, that it is only about “believers in the Tribulation”, who “should keep watch … be alert and prepared” (Constable p. 80).
The rather plain truth which is gleaned from just taking a literal approach to understanding what the passage says, without forcing an interpretation based on doctrinal presuppositions, the message is clear, without the need for contradictions. This is what Dispensationalists claim to do, but do they? In fact, renown Dispensationalist theologian and PTR apologist, Dr. Pentecost admits that they take a literal approach with a “necessary adjunct” (as cited above), which is often referred to as a “Dispensational Distinctive”. Their interpretation then of this passage is anything but a natural literal interpretation.
Jesus is explaining in this whole Olivet Discourse the eschatological picture telling us, the church, what will happen and when it will happen – the complete answer to the original questions asked by His disciples. His answer begins with what leads up to and becomes the 70th week of Daniel, the developments and events of the Tribulation period, and culminates in the judgment day at the second coming of Christ. But the good news is, this end of the world judgment day is preceded by the rapture of all Christ’s followers, which we call “the Church”. He then goes on to warn us, the Church, that this coming will be unknown and unexpected by those who aren’t watching and waiting – the obvious exhortation being to the church to be prepared, alert, living in expectation of that coming. The notion that suddenly here in Matthew 24 and 25 the church is not in view at all, is absolute nonsense. Ironically it involves claiming a doctrinal interpretation as a “hermeneutic” (a rule of interpretation), which is exactly what the whole concept of Hermeneutics (objective rules of interpretation) is designed to prevent. To claim a Dispensational Adjunct, or Distinctive, as a hermeneutic, is simply an oxymoron. The result of doing so is exactly what we see in the tortured logic of these PTR explanations of this key passage – it completely undermines the whole point of the passage, to motivate us the church to awake and alert and living differently in light of the expectation of Christ’s return, in both salvation and judgment.
Distortions of the message of the Metaphors used to make a point
If we continue in this passage in Matthew 24 we see more of the same:
“37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39)
Again, it is ironic that one of the arguments used in defense of the PTR view as opposed to the Post-tribulation Pre-wrath Rapture is that the whole element of surprise, or “imminence”, which is lost by saying that the rapture won’t happen until the end of the Tribulation Period. This involves at least two glaring inconsistencies in their logic and interpretation of explicit scripture.
First, we see here that Jesus told us it will be like it was in the days of Noah – people will be just going on with their lives eating and drinking, partying, as if nothing was happening, or going to happen – oblivious to the impending doom. This indicates the imminence, or element of surprise, to the extent that such is found anywhere in scripture. However, according to their PTR interpretation this is only about the second coming at the end of the 7-year Tribulation Period, not a rapture of the church – which is supposed to happen 7 years before. They also tell us that the church will have been raptured out 7 years before, which is itself going to cause chaos in the whole world, according to them – as in David Jeremiah’s The Great Disappearance, or LaHaye’s Left Behind series. But this metaphor about Noah tells us people will be obliviously going on with their lives as if nothing was going to happen. What about the almost catastrophic effects of that great disappearance of millions of Christian – which is imagined as being very disruptive to their lives?
However, according to their argument this metaphor is only about that rapture, not of the church but only of those “left behind” who get saved after the church is gone (which is designed to discredit the Post-tribulation Rapture view. How then does it not apply in this case of the rapture in Matthew 24:29-31, which they recognize is Post-tribulational, but nonetheless is being described as imminent? Indeed, they are right that this rapture is at the second coming of Christ, but contrary to their argument, it is still described as imminent to them in the sense that they will caught by surprise – like the metaphor which follows, a thief coming in the night. So, according to what we are told here in Matthew, a rapture occurring at the end of the Tribulation Period does not change the imminence of it – contrary to their line of reasoning to support their preferred view. In other words, they argue that a rapture of the church at the end of the Tribulation Period would lose its imminence (itself difficult to defend), yet here they have it, a rapture (of Tribulation Saints) which they say is Post-tribulational, being described by Jesus as being imminent, “as in the days of Noah”?
Furthermore, we know that Noah wasn’t saved from that catastrophic flood seven years before the judgment of the flood came. There wasn’t a period there where the unsaved unbelievers had a chance to still get in the Ark, or escape the flood. There was one last chance, one equivalent of a rapture of the saved, no second rapture as per the PTR theory, which is what they tell us this one in Matthew 24 is all about. Implicitly, and sometime explicitly, the PTR message is that you should accept Christ as Savior now before the rapture of the church, but if you don’t, probably because you just don’t believe all the warnings (like the people Noah preached to), then you will still have a chance, and many will still get saved then (not found in literal scripture), unlike those poor people in Noah’s day. This addendum to what is written here, is certainly not found in inspired scripture. In fact, it is a misleading and dangerous message (similar to the other false and misleading doctrines, such as the once-saved-always-saved gospel).
The truth is rather straightforward such that the unindoctrinated truth seeker can read it and understand very well, with just the Holy Spirit enlightening their understanding, without the need for men of certain theological schools of thought to guide and correct them (as insulting and infuriating as that may be to such Theologians and Doctrinaires). It is telling us that when Christ returns (one second coming) to bring the “day of the Lord” judgment on the earth, He is first going to take out His church. That coming will be a catastrophic surprise to those who aren’t ready for it – who aren’t metaphorically in the Ark like Noah and His family. From the next chapter, Matthew 25, we see it compared to 5 virgins who aren’t ready when the Bridegroom comes – i.e. they don’t endure to the end, as per Matthew 24:13, as their lamps went out having burned up all their oil. A person doesn’t need to be indoctrinated with Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism to understand the clear message here – just let it speak (letting scripture interpret scripture – as opposed to commentaries and reference notes, such as Scofield’s Reference Bible notes).
The ”left behind” Distortion
The next distortion of this text becomes likewise necessary because of the previous misinterpretations as discussed above. The text reads:
40 Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.” (Matthew 24:40-41)
The interpretation of this passage will probably come as a surprise to many, if not most lay believers who are not fully indoctrinated, but think they believe in the PTR theory. As suggested by the title of the “Left Behind” series, the average Bible reader will probably understand the ones who will be taken here as the saved believers, taken up in the rapture, and the ones left behind will be the unsaved – similar to those of the previous analogy to the ones who were shut out of Noah’s Ark, left out to undergo the judgment of the flood. But no, that is exactly the wrong interpretation, the opposite of what this passage means – according to them. Again, Dr. Constable sets us straight on this:
“Analogous to Noah’s day, the individuals who will be taken are the wicked whom the Lord will take away in judgment (cf. Luke 17:37). The individuals ‘left’ are believers who will be privileged to be on the earth to populate the kingdom of Jesus Christ in physical bodies.” (Constable p. 79) [3]
[[3] There is nothing in the cross-reference cited, Luke 17:37, by which he probably meant verses 34-36, which tells us that the ones taken out there will be the unrighteous taken out for judgment. In fact, the same analogy of the judgment of Noah’s flood, as well as that of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah appears there, in which the ones judged were not taken out in any sense, but were left where they were and God’s judgment was poured out on them. However, Jesus does address what will happen at the “end of the age” referring to the “Kingdom of Heaven” era, in several parables in Matthew 13. In the parable of the wheat and tares (13:24-30 and 36-43), and the dragnet (13:7-50) it is the opposite, as the wicked will be taken out for judgment, and the righteous left to “shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (13:43). But that is the end which follows the Millennial kingdom of God on earth, and the Post-millennial era when the unsaved “rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5) have been resurrected, many of which will follow Satan (who was also released from his 1000 year imprisonment) in the last rebellion, the Gog/Magog rebellion. In that judgment they will be taken out because it already is the kingdom of God on earth, which becomes the eternal state of the earthly New Jerusalem after this ultimate final judgment on earth, which probably coincides temporarily with the Great White Throne judgment.]
Now this is about as confusing, or confused as it gets. First, how is the leaving the unsaved out to drown in the flood analogous to be taken away, which is a tricky way of rephrasing “taken out”, or “caught up” or raptured? Clearly it is much more analogous to being left behind, the judgment being the destruction of the heaven and earth on which they are left behind.
Furthermore, one wonders if Dr. Constable has forgotten by this point what he has just told his readers about the rapture in the preceding verses 29-31. That, we are told, is the rapture, or “gathering”, as well as the resurrection of all the saved believers present on earth during that Tribulation Period. Now he tells us that just a few verses later those tribulation saints are going to be left behind – which is it? In fact, he also tells us they will still be in their physical bodies – . Now if that is the case, what about the outpouring of God’s wrath, which we are clearly told the saved saints will not go through – which the PTR advocates make a point of. According to 1Thessalonian 5:1-10, the passage describing that second coming of Christ in judgment, the promise is made:
“For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.” (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10)
If those who are the saved are being “left” to go through the judgment, who is being caught up at this hypothetical 2nd rapture of verses 29-31, the unsaved? And if it is the unsaved who are being gathered by the angels to be taken out, and why would they be taken out since they would be the very ones who are being judged?
According to Luke’s version of this same Olivet Discourse, referring to this coming judgment:
“…this day will not come on you suddenly, like a trap; 35for it will come upon all those who live on the face of all the earth.” (Luke 21:34-35).
This is a strange way of putting it if in fact those being judged are going to be taken out of the earth before that judgment will be poured out on it. Doesn’t it make eminently more sense to understand that the rapture of the elect of the preceding verses 29-31 will be the same ones taken out in the following verses 40-41 – the raptured saints, or elect?
The “thief in the night” Distortion
Finally, we come to the “thief in the night” metaphor:
“42 Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 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. 44 For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.” (Matthew 24:42-44)
First, Jesus is saying that it will be those who are not watching and waiting and living in expectation of Christ return that will be caught by surprise, His coming being like a thief in the night. While the PTR advocates do not recognize this occurrence in Matthew 24 as referring to the rapture of the church, it is the same metaphor which is also the message of one of those passages which they do recognize as about the rapture of the church, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. In fact, they use this very metaphor to provide scriptural support for their doctrine of “Imminence” of the Pre-tribulation Rapture of the church. However, it actually appears in that same text, in chapter 5 verse 2:
“2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief;” (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4)
We see from this context that the rapture of the church of 4:16-17 is actually also the second coming of Christ in judgement, when the “destruction will come upon them suddenly … and they will not escape”. This is a very clear and explicit indication that this rapture of the church occurs at the same time as that so-called “second coming”, which is called “the day of the Lord” – just as we see in Matthew 24, that day when the sun and moon will be darkened and the stars will fall from the sky. Furthermore, the reality is that every passage where this thief in the night metaphor appears is about the second coming of Christ:
“10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10)
“12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, so that the way would be prepared for the kings from the east. 13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. 15 (‘Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.’) 16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.” (Revelation 16:12-16)
So again, what we see in Matthew is repeated in, or very consistent with all the other passages on this subject. In every case it is telling us that those who are not prepared, who are not watching and waiting and living expectantly in light of Christ coming, will be caught by surprise like by a thief in the night. But we are also told explicitly that for those who are “not in darkness” that day of the Lord will not “overtake them like a thief” (1 Thessalonian 5:4). But, the only way that it makes sense to even suggest that this should give us a sense of urgency, or what could be called “imminence”, is if we realize and accept that this is about the church and what is going to happen to the church – that’s us, at least for those who will be here when it happens. Today we certainly have all the signs, as in fulfilled prophecies, that it is going to happen soon, possibly in our lifetimes – not just some future time after we are already gone for at least 7 years, as per the Pre-tribulation Rapture teaching.
The False Dichotomy Discrepancies
In the course of trying to argue for a Pre-tribulational Rapture being more rational or logical than the Post-Tribulational Pre-wrath view the PTR advocates try to depict the two interpretations as characterized by sharp conflicting interpretations, the one being obviously more logical, the other ridiculous. An example of this is what Tim LaHaye has called “the yo-yo effect”:
“…those who are raptured zip right up to the sky then right back down. This leaves no time to visit the Father’s house, no time for the judgment seat of Christ, and no time for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.” (LaHaye et. al., Charting the End Times, p. 107.)
That is that if the rapture of the church is to happen at the second coming of Christ then you would have the saints being taken out of the world just to return with Him to judge the world. This may sound like a pretty logical argument, the way it is phrased.
First, it is scriptural to believe that when Christ returns to earth at His second coming He will be bringing His raptured and resurrected saints with Him:
“11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.” (Revelation 19:11-14)
If we understand the “armies of heaven” as including all the Saints, including the rapture church, then we have them returning with Him to earth when He comes to judge the earth. If we understand the rapture of the church as being Pre-wrath but Post-tribulational, then we do have what he and others sarcastically call the Yo-Yo effect – as the church we get taken up to meet Him in the clouds to come right back down with Him to judge the earth. But, first, it is not as illogical as they make it sound. In fact, when that return to earth is to destroy the earth and all those in it, it is actually necessary that He first catches the saved ones up to join Him in His procession to fight and destroy and become victorious over all those His enemies, which are also their enemies. It is like those in history who would go out to meet an approaching conqueror (such as Alexander the Great) to join His forces, before He defeated and destroyed the city they were living in.
However, for these PTR advocates it is a false dichotomy between their view and the Post-tribulational Rapture view. According to their view the rapture in Matthew 24:29-31, is Post-tribulational. According to them, it will be a rapture of what they designate as Tribulation Saints – those who come to Christ during that 7-year Tribulation Period. How then is this not the exact same Yo-Yo effect. If it doesn’t make sense for the Pretribulation Rapture of the church, how does it make any more sense for their Post-tribulation Rapture of the Tribulation Saints? Obviously, it is just another straw-man argument.
The “timing” Distortion
Another argument which might sound pretty convincing to the uncritical thinker is that related to the timing of these supposedly sequential events. This is the argument we see in many of these PTR writers that there has to be some considerable amount of time between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ for the judgment. Again this is LaHaye’s argument:
“…those who are raptured zip right up to the sky then right back down. This leaves no time to visit the Father’s house, no time for the judgment seat of Christ, and no time for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.” (LaHaye et. al., Charting the End Times, p. 107.)
Perhaps the strongest element of his argument, logically speaking, is actually the weakest – that is the timing issue. First, LaHaye seems to assume that God operates within the dimensions of time and space. However, both time and space only have any meaning in terms of a physical world. How would one measure the height and width and thickness of a spirit? Similarly, how does one measure time without clocks which are purely physical phenomenon? [4] The Bible indicates that in God’s spiritual realm there is no time. How do we measure eternity in terms of time? God’s word says that to Him a day is like a thousand years – thus to Him 24 hours is the same as 8 million 760 thousand hours.
However, if we did assume that God is operating on a human or earthly time frame, how long will He need to accomplish all these things mentioned by LaHaye, which supposedly takes time? Take for example just the “judgment seat of Christ”, how long will it take in human earthly time to perform such a judgment. If we assume that all saved believers are going to be resurrected and thus will all stand in judgment at that time then the numbers may be something like the following (using very conservative estimates):
Ten billion people have lived since the creation – probably since the flood of Noah;
Only 5% (or 500 million) will be saved, hence resurrected and raptured when Christ comes; Only 1 minute is allowed for each person’s trial;
Hence:
10,000,000,000 x .05 x 1/(60 x 24 x 365) = 964.5 years.
Thus, it would take over 964 years to try only 5% of all the people who have lived.
Or, if we say that it will only be New Testament Saints who will be resurrected and tried at that time, and we assume it will be only 1/5 of that number, i.e. only 1 % (100 million) will be judged at that time then we have:
10,000,000,000 x .01 x 1/(60x24x365) = 190.3 years.
Thus, we still need over 190 years. How does Mr. LaHaye propose to get all of these people tried in 7 years if God is operating on an earthly human time frame? Even if he only allows two seconds for the trial of each person he could not have a full one percent of the world’s population being judged in that time frame. But then we also have to allow time, according to Mr. LaHaye, for the wedding feast, and time for all believers to visit with the Father in heaven. How much time do we have to allow for those events, on LaHaye’s time scale? Where in scripture, which is full of exact times for things, does it indicate that all these events are going to take time – human earthly time? If such is the case then it seems that God didn’t allow enough time in the seven year tribulation period. In fact it seems that we would need closer to a millennium, or at least a few centuries.
The point is that such an argument is simply absurd – God is not operating in a human physical realm which is within a time/space continuum. Time and space have no meaning in a spiritual realm as they are purely physical concepts. The judgment seat of Christ and the marriage of the Lamb, which are highly symbolic in nature, will probably happen instantaneously in one sense, but go on indefinitely in another sense. What goes on in the earthly realm is measured on a time referenced basis, but what goes on in the heavenly, spiritual realm cannot be measured in terms of time – it is a timeless realm.
[[4] While it is impossible for us to imagine a realm of existence in which time is not a dimension that is because we have only experienced existence in a physical world. Without some kind of clock by which time can be measured, the notion of time becomes meaningless. Time is always measured in terms of periodicity of cyclical physical processes. Years are measured in terms of the period of time it takes the earth to orbit around the sun. Months are measured in terms of the period of time it takes the moon to orbit around the earth with reference to the sun or the stars. Days are of course measured in terms of the periodicity of the earth spinning on its axis with reference to the sun. Hours and minutes are equal divisions of the day, usually measured by the periodicity of mechanical devices, such as the swinging of a pendulum or more modern electromechanical devices. These devices are themselves calibrated to a standard known as “atomic clocks” (or “cesium clocks”) which utilizes the frequency of electromagnetic waves of atoms or molecules to define a second in terms of periods of radiation. Thus, even the “cesium clocks” depend upon cyclical physical processes with a periodicity of 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. There are no such physical clocks with cyclical periodic processes in the spiritual realm of existence.]
Furthermore, as pointed out in the previous paragraphs, the PTR view has the exact same problem if it were actually a problem. According to that view all those Tribulation Period Saints, which they contend Matthew 24 is all about, will “zip right up to the sky then right back down” as LaHaye puts it. So how then can this be a valid argument for the PTR view as opposed to a Post-tribulation Pre-wrath Rapture view?
Thus again, we have another distortion, trying to use logic (rather than scripture) to prop up a view which cannot be derived from intellectually honest literal interpretation of scripture. Just as their interpretations of scripture are seriously flawed, so is their logic to explain those misinterpretations. One should seriously question why it becomes necessary to put forth such illogical arguments, if their view is an accurate interpretation of what God’s word so clearly reveals to us – without any such contradictions or inconsistencies.
In conclusion, the Olivet Discourse is exactly what it appears to be, and the part about the rapture and everything following it, is exactly what the unindoctrinated truth-seeking reader understands it to be – the one and only rapture, the rapture of the church (which definitely is in Matthew 24, as well as throughout Revelation). And yes, as we are being told in Matthew, that rapture happens after the Tribulation Period, concurrent with the one and only second coming of Christ, which is the “day of the Lord”, but before He pours out His judgment on the whole world, and those left behind in it.
end times revisited 