The Rapture Theory Examined

Source: https://americanvision.org/21575/the-rapture-and-the-fig-tree-generation/

The following is from the Introduction to my new book The Rapture and the Fig Tree Generation that will be available from American Vision in January 2020 by Gary DeMar

Mark Hitchcock has written a free eBook for Dallas Theological Seminary titled The Truth and Timing of the Rapture that has been promoted on Facebook. When Hitchcock writes about the “rapture,” he is referring to a pre-tribulation “rapture of the Church” prior to the start of the long-postponed 70th week of Daniel’s “70 weeks of years” prophecy found in Daniel 9:24–27. He writes:

The first view of the rapture is the pre-tribulational view, which teaches that believers are going to be caught up before the Tribulation, or the seventieth week of Daniel 9.1

The pre-tribulation rapture position requires that the 70th week of the “70 weeks of years” prophecy  (490 years) be separated from the other 69 weeks (483 years). If the Bible does not teach such a separation, then the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is false. Read the passage for yourself to see if there is any mention of anyone being “raptured” — taken to heaven — for any reason.

Hitchcock describes four rapture views but is an advocate for the pre-tribulation position. It goes like this: we are presently living in the “Church Age,” a period of time that is said to have been instituted by God when Israel rejected Jesus as its long-promised Messiah and chose Barabbas and Caesar over Jesus (John 19:1–15).

What many Christians do not know is that the pre-tribulation rapture view is dependent upon the separation of the 70th week (consisting of 7 years) from the other 69 weeks (483 years) and with the insertion of a parenthesis (now nearly 2000 years long) between the 69th and 70th weeks. I suspect that most Christians who hold to the pre-tribulation rapture position could not explain its details or defend it biblically. All they’ve heard is how they will be “raptured” before a period of tribulation takes place that will bring untold hardship on billions of people. Many people are not sure how this doctrine was developed. They’ve heard about the “rapture” for so long that they believe it is a fundamental doctrine of the Church. It isn’t. The fact that there are five rapture views with no single verse supporting any one of them should make anyone who holds any of the positions to take the time to study the topic before claiming “it’s in the Bible.”

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the fictional Left Behind2 series and other books on prophecy, who shares Hitchcock’s pre-tribulation view, had this to say about the timing of the rapture and biblical support for the various rapture positions:

One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either.3

Later in the same book LaHaye repeats his comment about there not being one Scripture passage that supports any of the rapture positions:

No single verse specifically states, “Christ will come before the Tribulation. On the other hand, no single passage teaches He will not come before the Tribulation, or that He will come in the middle or at the end of the Tribulation. Any such explicit declaration would end the debate immediately.4

On the February 26, 1985, episode “End Times and The Great Tribulation” on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Hal Lindsey said this about biblical support for the various rapture positions:

Now I have to say, there is no specific scripture that a post-tribulationist can point to and say, “this proves my theory,” and there’s no specific scripture that a mid-tribulationist can point to either, and there’s no specific scripture that a pre-tribulationist can point to.

What needs to be found in the New Testament is a verse or series of verses that says the Church will be taken to heaven any time just before or any time during the 70th week of Daniel’s “70 weeks of years” prophecy. As LaHaye is honest enough to admit, there isn’t one, and this includes 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52. Read the passages for yourself. Nothing is said in either passage about a tribulation period, a discussion of the prophecy found in Daniel 9:24–27, any reference to God dealing separately with the nation of Israel (a crucial element of the pre-tribulation view), the Antichrist making and breaking a covenant with the Jews, a rebuilt temple, or Jesus returning “with His church” to set up an earthly millennial kingdom after the seven years.

Traditionally, 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 has been interpreted to refer to the General Resurrection at Jesus’ Second Coming, not to a separate event where Jesus comes “for His saints” in a “rapture” and then again “with His saints” at the end of the seven-year period and then one more time after Jesus reigns on the earth for a thousand years (of which the Bible says nothing). N.T. Wright explains:

Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51–54 and Philippians 3:20–21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.5

The chart6 below shows the general time-line of the pre-tribulation rapture position.

“THE CHURCH AGE” is the manufactured addition to God’s redemptive plan that separates the 70th week (7 years) from the other previous 69 weeks (483 years). The 70th week is pushed into the future and a gap in time of undetermined length is placed between Revelation 3:22 and 4:1. There is no biblical support for doing this. The first 3.5 years of the 70th week take place before the cross and the second 3.5 years take place after the cross. The “70th weeks of years” prophecy is consecutive with no postponement or gaps. Biblical scholar Ernst Hengstenberg asked, since “exactly 70 weeks in all are to elapse,… how can anyone imagine that there is an interval between the 69 and the 1, when these together make up the 70?”7 Exactly!

The pre-tribulation rapture interpretation was developed in the early part of the nineteenth century, and was made popular by the 1909 and revised 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.8 The newness of the position does not mean it’s wrong, but it does give reason to question it.

Relevant Questions to Ask

  • Did God stop the prophetic clock regarding Israel, thereby postponing the 70th week and inserting a nearly 2000-year gap called the “Church Age,” and will He restart the prophecy clock with the beginning of the 70th week once the Church is taken off the earth in the pre-tribulation rapture?
  • Does Daniel’s “70 weeks of years” prophecy indicate a gap in time (parenthesis) between the end of the 69 weeks (483 years) and the 70th week (7 years)? If there is no gap (now supposedly nearly 2000 years long), can there be a pre-tribulational rapture or any rapture?
  • Does the Bible teach a distinction between Israel and the Church where the Church is a new redemptive body of believers because Israel rejected Jesus as its promised Messiah?
  • What is the fate of Israel in the pre-tribulational rapture interpretive position, and why would God wait nearly 2000 years to deal with Israel again and then lead the chosen nation into another holocaust?
  • Does the Bible say that Jesus could come at “any moment” or that His coming was “near” and “soon” to take place before that first-century generation passed away?
  • Is the “wrath” or “tribulation” that God’s people will escape an escape from this world in a “rapture” or an escape from a local judgment in Jerusalem?
  1. Hitchcock mentions five rapture views in The End: A Complete Overview of Bible Prophecy and the End of Days (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, Pub., 2012). They are pre-trib, mid-trib, mid-trib, “partial” or “conditional rapture,” and post-trib. []
  2. For a critique of the Left Behind thesis, see Gary DeMar, Left Behind: Separating Fact From Fiction (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2009). []
  3. Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. Emphasis added. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack. []
  4. LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm, 188. Emphasis added. It’s common among advocates for the pre-tribulation rapture position to admit that nowhere in the Bible does it directly say that the Church will be raptured before the tribulation. Like Tim LaHaye, Todd Strandberg and Terry James, authors of Are You Rapture Ready?, offer a similar answer: “Pre-Trib opponents should have thought this one through because any pre-Tribulationist has the same right to say, ‘Nowhere in the Bible does it directly say the Church will go through the Tribulation’” (55). There is a biblically viable answer: Since there are no direct biblical references to support the “rapture” of the Church before, sometime in the middle, or after a Tribulation period, maybe the problem is with the doctrine itself. []
  5. N.T. Wright, “Farewell to the Rapture,” Bible Review (August 2001): https://goo.gl/LWd5Rf []
  6. Taken from Todd Strandberg and Terry James, Are You Rapture Ready?: Signs, Prophecies, Warnings, Threats, and Suspicions that the Endtime is Now (New York: Penguin/Dutton, 2003), 51. []
  7. E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Predictions of the Messiah by the Prophets, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: William M. Morrison, 1839), 3:143. []
  8. Hitchcock offers some debatable historical evidence for his claim that elements of the pre-tribulation rapture view have a longer history. He appeals to a Brother Dolcino who died in 1307. I was surprised by Hitchcock’s use of Dolcino since he believed the following: “‘Once Antichrist is truly dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true faith of Jesus Christ.’” This is quite different from the view held by Hitchcock who believes that once the Antichrist is vanquished Jesus will rule on earth, not “Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope” who would convert the people to the Roman Catholic faith. See Hitchcock, Could the Rapture Happen Today?, 135. The Dolcino reference is found in Francis X. Gumerlock, “A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth Century,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (July-September 2002), 354-355.

The Rapture is a Package Deal

Article: Pre-Wrath Dispensationalism – The ‘Rapture’ is a Package Deal by Gary Demar – Original source – https://americanvision.org/21396/pre-wrath-v-dispensationalism-the-rapture-is-a-package-deal/

The Pre-Wrath Rapture position has all the inherent interpretive problems the other four rapture positions have.

As I’ve mentioned in other places, there are five rapture positions. They depend on the belief that the 70th week (seven years) of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years prophecy (490 years) has been postponed. Those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture position believe the rapture of the church will take place before the seven-year period. Mid-tribbers believe the rapture takes place at the mid-point of the seven years. Post-tribbers claim the rapture takes place at the end of the seven-year people. The “partial” or “conditional rapture” position is as follows:

This view teaches that only those who are spiritual, who are prepared for the Lord’s return, will escape the terrors of the tribulation by being taken in the rapture. Carnal Christians are raptured progressively during the tribulation as they become righteous and the tribulation period is a time for disciplining believers toward holy living. …

The partial rapture theory originated with Robert Govett in 1835 in his book Entrance into the Kingdom: The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture. Later proponents of this view include J.A. Seiss, G.H. Pember, G.H. Lang, Ray Brubaker and the cult of the Local Church Movement (Witness Lee).

The newest entry is the Pre-Wrath Rapture position. This fifth rapture position teaches that the church is raptured just prior to God pouring out His wrath in judgment. It’s closest to the post-trib position since it takes place near the end of the seven-year period (Daniel’s postponed 70th week). When Jesus described the coming judgment on Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse, that took place in the lead up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, those living in Jerusalem could avoid His wrath by fleeing to the mountains outside of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:16). As we’ll see, the pre-wrath position shares the same problems inherent in the other rapture positions.

Marvin Rosenthal formally named and publicized the pre-wrath Bible prophecy position in 1990 with the publication of his book The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, published by Thomas Nelson. He was a committed dispensationalist for many years. He rejected the position when after his own personal study he could not find support for the pre-trib rapture view. Rosenthal turned to John Walvoord to find biblical support for the position. Walvoord’s The Rapture Question includes a list of fifty arguments in support of a pre-trib belief. Rosenthal was shocked when after reading the list that there was no biblical text that explicitly supported the doctrine. Rosenthal could come to only one conclusion:

Not once, among fifty arguments, does this godly Christian leader cite one biblical text that explicitly teaches pretribulation rapturism—not once. This was not an oversight. The reason for the omission of any pretribulation Rapture texts is clear. There are none. Walvoord’s own comment helps substantiate that fact. He wrote, “It is therefore not too much to say that the Rapture question is determined more by ecclesiology [the doctrine of the Church] than eschatology [the doctrine of the last things].” In other words, he is saying that verses which deal with the church must be used to prove an issue that relates to the prophecy. There simply is no explicit exegetical evidence for pretribulation rapturism.1

As Rosenthal came to find out, there is not one explicit verse to support a position that millions of Bible-believing Christians hold with unbending devotion. He was right. None of the major rapture positions can point to a verse that supports their position, something that pre- and post-tribbers admit. In fact, none of the five rapture positions have any biblical support because they fail to account for the timing of prophetic events as they relate to Daniel’s 70 weeks of years.

The Pre-wrath position makes the same mistake as the dispensationalists by separating the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 from the first 69 weeks when nothing is said about such a separation, gap, or parenthesis in the passage. The “rapture” is a package deal. It must include a discussion of how the 70th week of Daniel’s 70 weeks of years prophecy has been postponed for nearly 2000 years. Those who appeal to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-52 to support the “rapture of the church” claim must explain why there is no mention of Daniel’s prophecy anywhere in 1 Thessalonians or 1 Corinthians. There is no mention of an antichrist, making a covenant with Israel, breaking the covenant, rebuilding the temple (again), Israel returning to their land (again), or anything related to how the five rapture positions interpret Daniel 9:24-27.

Image result for daniel's 70 weeks
Notice the extended gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Daniel is told that “70 weeks are decreed” (9:24). This is a mistranslation. “The student of the Hebrew text will note that the masculine plural [70 weeks] is here construed with a verb in the singular (is decreed). The seventy heptades are conceived as a unit, a round number, and are most naturally understood as so many sevens of years.”2 There are 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week. These 70 weeks are said to be 70 weeks of years, thus, 490 years. There is no gap between the 7 and 62 weeks (483 weeks of years), so why is there a gap between the 69th (7 +62) and the 70th week?

Earlier in Daniel 9, we learn that Daniel is reading Jeremiah’s prophecy: “[I]n the first year of the reign of [Darius the son of Ahasuerus], I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years” (9:2).

The 70 years of captivity is the key that unlocks the 70 weeks of years. Daniel was referring to what we know today as Jeremiah 29:10: “For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.’”

The 70 years of captivity lasted 70 years! There were no gaps, postponements, or an insertion of ongoing years as part of some change in God’s redemptive plan. What if God had postponed the 70th year of release from captivity by nearly 2000 years but didn’t count the 2000 years in the overall calculation? Only the 69 years and the final year would be counted. The additional years between the 69th and 70th year would not be counted. The 70th year was continually pushed into the future and the Jews would still be in captivity waiting for the 70th and final year, but God would only count 70 years. It makes no sense.

But this is exactly what dispensationalists and “pre-wrathers” claim is happening in Daniel 9:24–27. They only differ on when the “rapture” takes place. Pre-tribbers place the rapture before (pre) the tribulation period of seven years (Daniel’s 70th week of years), while pre-wrath advocates place the rapture just prior to God pouring out His wrath during the seven-year (Daniel’s 70th week of years) period. Both positions claim that the 70th year of Daniel’s 70 weeks of years (490 years total) has been postponed contrary to any explicit statement in Daniel 9:24–27 of that fact. “Exactly 70 weeks in all are to elapse; and how can anyone imagine that there is an interval between the 69 and the 1, when these together make up the 70?”3

The following is from the book Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants on why a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy is “contrary to a vision of chronological sequence”:

The vision of Daniel’s seventy weeks … refers to a period of seventy sabbaticals or periods of seven years required to bring in the ultimate jubilee: release from sin, the establishment of everlasting righteousness, and consecration of the temple…. In the climactic seventieth week, Israel’s King arrives and dies vicariously for his people. Strangely, the desecration of the temple similar to Antiochus Epiphanes in the Greek empire is perpetrated by the Jewish people themselves, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem. These events are fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the coming King. His crucifixion is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and the basis of the new covenant with the many. His death is “not for himself,” but rather vicarious. The rejection of Jesus the Messiah and the desecration of him as the true Temple by his trial by the high priest result in judgment upon the Herodian temple, carried out eventually in A.D. 70. The notion of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week is contrary to a vision of chronological sequence. The prophecy is remarkable for its precision as it fits the event concerning Jesus of Nazareth.4

Pre-wrath advocates follow the same type of postponement logic as the pre-tribulationalists. Their main disagreement with dispensationalism is when the “rapture of the church” takes place. The notion of a “rapture” is based on the unproven assumption that the 70th week has been pushed off into the distant future by a gap of nearly 2000 years (so far). Until the “gap” between the 69th and 70th weeks is proven from the text, there is no basis for a “rapture,” either pre, mid, or post-tribulational, partial, or pre-wrath. Until the “gap” idea is proven, the pre-wrath position has the same inherent problems as dispensationalism.

It’s possible that we’ve missed the meaning of the following passage:

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven (Matt. 18:21-22).

Save

Is Jesus referencing Daniel 9:24-27. Time had run out for Israel. The end of the Old Covenant was on the horizon. God’s promises to Israel had been fulfilled. The separation of the wheat and tares was about to commence. The 70th week (the fullness of the 70 weeks of years: 490 years) was about to be fulfilled When Jesus prophesied that, “your house is being left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38). The house was the temple that would be destroyed within a generation (Matt. 24:34) as a symbol of that end.

Save

All the rapture positions dismiss the New Testament’s emphasis on the inauguration of the New Covenant and the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:21-31). The writer to the Hebrews destroys the myth of a renewed covenant with earthly Jerusalem based on the rudiments of the Old Covenant: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (12:22-24).

  1. Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: A New Understanding of the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 280. []
  2. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1898] 1988), 201. []
  3. E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Predictions of the Messiah by the Prophets, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: William M. Morrison, 1839), 3:143. []
  4. Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL Crossway, 2012), 563–564. Emphasis added. []