Why a Pretribulational Rapture?

The English noun/verb “rapture” comes from the Latin noun raptura/verb rapio that is used 14 times in the NT. The basic idea of the word is “to remove suddenly or snatch away.” It is used in the NT in reference to stealing/plundering (Matt. 11:12; 12:29; 13:19; John 10:12, 28, 29) and removing (John 6:15; Acts 8:39; 23:10; Jude 23).There is a third use, which focuses on being caught up to heaven. It is used of Paul’s third heaven experience (2 Cor. 12:2, 4) and Christ’s ascension to heaven.

Obviously, this is the perfect word to describe God suddenly taking up the church from earth to heaven as the first part of Christ’s second coming. However, the term itself contains no hint as to its time in relationship to Daniel’s seventieth week.

First Thessalonians 4:16–17 unquestionably refers to a rapture that is eschatological in nature. Hence, harpazo is translated “caught up”:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. (NASB, italics mine)

Without employing harpazo, but by using similar contextual language, 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 refers to the same eschatological event as 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

Thus, it can be concluded that Scripture points to an eschatological rapture, even though neither of these foundational texts contains a time indicator.

Some have suggested that the rapture spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 will only be a “partial” rapture, not a rapture of all who believe. Advocates reason that participation in the rapture is not based upon one’s salvation, but is instead conditional, dependent upon one’s deserving conduct.

This theory rests on NT passages that stress obedient watching and waiting (e.g., Matt. 25:1–13; 1 Thess. 5:4–8; Heb. 9:28). If this interpretation is correct, the result would be that only part of the church would be raptured, and those who are not raptured would endure a portion of or the entire seventieth week of Daniel. However, these biblical texts which supposedly teach a partial rapture are better understood as differentiating between true believers who are raptured and merely professing, yet false believers who remain behind. Texts that refer to the final aspect of Christ’s second coming are often used mistakenly to support the partial-rapture theory.

There are numerous reasons the partial rapture theory fails to be convincing. First, 1 Corinthians 15:51 says that “all” will be changed. Second, a partial rapture would logically demand a parallel partial resurrection, which is nowhere taught in Scripture. Third, a partial rapture would minimize and possibly eliminate the need for the judgment seat of Christ, because judgment would have already taken place by virtue of a “partial” rapture. Fourth, it creates a purgatory of sorts on earth for those believers left behind. Fifth, a partial rapture is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. Therefore, it is best concluded that the rapture will be full and complete, not just partial.

1. The Church Is Not Mentioned in Revelation 6–18 as Being on Earth

The common NT term for “church” (ekklesia) is used 19 times in Revelation 1–3, a section that deals with the historical church of the first century toward the end of the apostle John’s life (ca. AD 95). However, “church” is then used only once more in the twenty-two chapter book, and that use is at the very end (22:16) when John returns to addressing the first-century church. Most interesting is the fact that nowhere during the period of Daniel’s seventieth week is the term for “church” used for believers on earth (cf. Rev. 4–19).

It is unexpected that John would shift from detailed instructions for the church to complete silence about the church in the subsequent 13 chapters if, in fact, the church did continue into the tribulation. If the church will experience the tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week, then surely the most detailed study of tribulation events would include an account of the church’s role—but it does not. The only timing of the rapture that would account for this frequent mention of “church” in Revelation 1–3 and the total absence of the “church” on earth until Revelation 22:16 is a pretribulational rapture which will relocate the church from earth to heaven prior to Daniel’s seventieth week.

Looking at this observation from another perspective, it is also true that nowhere in Scripture is it taught that the church and Israel would coexist as the centers for God’s redemptive message and yet remain mutually exclusive.

Today, the church universal is God’s human channel of redemptive truth. Revelation gives indications that the Jewish remnant will be God’s human instrument during Daniel’s seventieth week. The narrative abruptly shifts from the “church” in Revelation 2–3 to the 144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes in Revelation 7 and 14. Readers must ask, “Why?”

Further, because Revelation 12 is a mini-synopsis of the entire tribulation period and because the woman who gave birth to the male child (Rev. 12:1–13) is Israel, then the Tribulation period focuses on the nation of Israel, not the church. How could this be? Because a pretribulational rapture has removed the “church” from the earth prior to Daniel’s seventieth week.

2. The Rapture Is Rendered Inconsequential if it is Posttribulational

First, if God miraculously preserves the church through the tribulation, why have a rapture? If it is to avoid the wrath of God at Armageddon, then why would God not continue to protect the saints on earth (as is postulated by posttribulationism) just as He protected Israel (see Exod. 8:22; 9:4, 26; 10:23; 11:7) from the wrath He poured out on Pharaoh and Egypt. Further, if the purpose of the rapture is for living saints to avoid Armageddon, why also resurrect the saints who are already immune at the same time?

Second, if the rapture will take place in connection with the Lord’s posttribulational coming, the subsequent separation of the sheep from the goats (see Matt. 25:31 ff.) will be redundant. Separation will have taken place in the very act of translation.

Third, if all tribulation believers are raptured and glorified just prior to the inauguration of the millennial Kingdom, who then will populate and propagate the Kingdom? The Scriptures indicate that the living unbelievers will be judged at the end of the tribulation and removed from the earth (see Matt. 13:41–42; 25:41). Yet, they also teach that children will be born to believers during the millennium and that these children will be capable of sin (see Isa. 65:20; Rev 20:7–10). This will not be possible if all believers on earth have been glorified through a posttribulational rapture.

Fourth, the posttribulational paradigm of the church being raptured and then immediately brought back to earth leaves no time for the Bema, i.e., the Judgment Seat of Christ to occur (1 Cor. 3:10–15; 2 Cor. 5:10), nor for the Marriage Supper (Rev. 19:6–10). Thus, it can be concluded that a posttribulational time of the rapture is incongruous with the sheep-goat nation judgment, and, in fact, eliminates two critical end-time events. A pretribulational rapture avoids all of these difficulties.

3. The Epistles Contain No Preparatory Warnings of an Impending Tribulation for Church-Age Believers

God’s instructions to the church through the epistles contain a variety of warnings, but never do they warn believers to prepare for entering and enduring the tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week.

They warn vigorously about coming error and false prophets (see Acts 20:29–30; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1–3; Jude 4). They warn against ungodly living (see Eph. 4:25–5:7; 1 Thess. 4:3-8; Heb. 12:1). They even admonish believers to endure in the midst of present tribulation (see 1 Thess. 2:13–14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Peter). However, there is absolute silence on preparing the church for any kind of tribulation like that found in Revelation 6–18.

It is incongruous, then, that the Scriptures would be silent about such a traumatic change for the church. If any time of the rapture other than pretribulational were true, one would expect the epistles to teach the reality of the church in the tribulation, the purpose of the church in the tribulation, and the conduct of the church in the tribulation. However, there is no teaching whatsoever. Only a pretribulational rapture satisfactorily explains this silence.

4. First Thessalonians 4:13–18 Demands a Pretribulational Rapture

Suppose, hypothetically, that some other rapture timing besides pretribulational is true. What would one expect to find in 1 Thessalonians 4? How does this compare with what is actually observed?

First, one would expect the Thessalonians to be joyous over the fact that loved ones are home with the Lord and will not have to endure the horrors of the tribulation. But the Thessalonians are actually grieving because they fear their loved ones have missed the rapture. Only a pretribulational rapture accounts for this grief.

Second, one would expect the Thessalonians to be grieving over their own impending trial rather than grieving over loved ones. Furthermore, they would be inquisitive about their own future doom. But the Thessalonians have no fears or questions about the coming tribulation.

Third, one would expect Paul, even in the absence of interest or questions by the Thessalonians, to have provided instructions and exhortation for such a supreme test, which would make their present tribulation seem microscopic in comparison. But not one indication of any impending tribulation of this sort appears in the text.

First Thessalonians 4 fits only the model of a pretribulational rapture. It is incompatible with any other time for the rapture.

5. John 14:1–3 Parallels 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18

John 14:1–3 refers to Christ’s second coming. It is not a promise to all believers that they shall go to Him at death. It does refer to the rapture of the church. Note the close parallel between the promises of John 14:1–3 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. First, the promise of a presence with Christ: “. . . that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:3) and “. . . thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). Second, the promise of comfort: “Let not your heart be troubled . . .” (John 14:1) and “Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18).

Jesus instructed the disciples that He was going to His Father’s house (heaven) to prepare a place for them. He promised that He would return and receive them so that they could be with Him wherever He was.

The phrase “wherever I am,” while implying continued presence in general, here means presence in heaven in particular. The Lord told the Pharisees in John 7:34, “Where I am you cannot come.” He was not talking about His then-present abode on earth, but rather His resurrected presence at the right hand of the Father. In John 14:3, “where I am” must mean “in heaven,” or the intent of 14:1–3 would be meaningless.

A posttribulational rapture demands that the saints meet Christ in the air and immediately descend to earth without experiencing what the Lord promised in John 14. Since John 14 refers to the rapture, only a pretribulational rapture satisfies the language of John 14:1–3 and allows raptured saints to dwell for a meaningful time with Christ in His Father’s house.

6. The Nature of Events at Christ’s Posttribulational Coming Differs from that of the Rapture

If one compares what happens at the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–58 with what happens in the final events of Christ’s second coming in Matthew 24–25, at least eight differences are observable. These differences demand that the rapture occur at a time significantly different from that of the final event of Christ’s second coming.

1. At the rapture, Christ comes in the air and returns to heaven (1 4:17), but at the final event of the second coming, Christ comes to the earth to dwell and reign (Matt. 25:31–32).
2. At the rapture, Christ gathers His own (1 4:16–17), but at the final event of the second coming, angels gather the elect (Matt. 24:31).
3. At the rapture, Christ comes to reward (1 4:17), but at the final event of the second coming, Christ comes to judge (Matt. 25:31–46).
4. At the rapture, resurrection is prominent (1 4:15–16), but at the final event of the second coming, resurrection is not mentioned.
5. At the rapture, believers depart the earth (1 4:15–17), but at the final event of the second coming, unbelievers are taken away from the earth (Matt. 24:37–41).
6. At the rapture, unbelievers remain on earth, but at the final event of the second coming, believers remain on earth (M 25:34).
7. At the rapture, there is no mention of establishing Christ’s Kingdom on earth, but at the final event of the second coming, Christ has come to set up His Kingdom on earth (Matt. 25:31, 34).
8. At the rapture, believers will receive glorified bodies (cf. 1 15:51–57), but at the final event of the second coming, no one will receive glorified bodies.

Additionally, several of Christ’s parables in Matthew 13 confirm differences between the rapture and the final event of Christ’s second coming.

1. In the parable of the wheat and tares, the tares (unbelievers) are taken out from among the wheat (believers) at the second coming (Matt. 13:30, 40), but believers are removed from among unbelievers at the rapture (1 4:15–17).
2. In the parable of the dragnet, the bad fish (unbelievers) are taken out from among the good fish (believers) at Christ’s second coming (Matt. 13:48–50), but believers are removed from among unbelievers at the rapture (1 4:15–17 ).

Finally, the rapture is not mentioned in either of the most detailed second coming texts—Matthew 24 and Revelation 19. This is to be expected in light of the observations above, because the pretribulational rapture will have occurred seven years earlier.

7. Revelation 3:10 Promises that the Church Will Be Removed Prior to Daniel’s Seventieth Week

The issue here is whether the phrase “keep you from the hour of testing” means “a continuing safe state outside of” or “safe emergence from within.”

The Meaning of Ek

The Greek preposition ek has the idea of emergence, but this is not the case in every context. Two notable exceptions to the basic idea are 2 Corinthians 1:10 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10. In the Corinthian passage, Paul rehearses his rescue from death by God. As is apparent, Paul did not emerge from a state of death, but instead was rescued from that potential danger.

Even more convincing is 1 Thessalonians 1:10. Here Paul states that Jesus is rescuing believers out of the wrath to come. The idea is not emergence out of wrath, but rather protection from entrance into wrath.

Therefore, ek can be understood to mean either “a continuing state outside of” or “emergence from within.” Thus, no rapture position can be dogmatic at this point. At best, all positions remain possible.

The Meaning of Tereo Ek

It has been argued that if John had meant “to keep from,” he would have used tereo apo (cf. James 1:27). But it is more than equally true that if John had meant “protection within,” he would have used tereo with en, eis, or dia. The greater burden of proof lies with the mid- and post- tribulational positions since their solution of immunity within does not explain the use of ek.

First, ek is much closer to apo in meaning than it is to en, eis, or dia. The two frequently overlap, and in modern Greek apo is absorbing ek. When combined with tereo, ek much more closely approximates apo than it does en, eis or dia.

Second, the phrase tereo en is used three times in the NT (see Acts 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:4; Jude 21). In each instance, it implies previous existence within with a view to continuation within. Now, if tereo en means continued existence within, what does tereo ek mean? Since they are anything but synonymous, it quite logically means to maintain an existence outside.

Tereo Ek in John 17:15

John 17:15 is the only other passage in the NT where tereo ek occurs. This word combination does not occur in the Septuagint. It is assumed that whatever the phrase means here, it also means the same in Revelation 3:10.

If tereo ek means “previous existence within,” it contradicts 1 John 5:19 which states that believers are of God and unbelievers are in the evil one. Now if 1 John 5:19 implies that believers are not in the power of the evil one, John 17:15 could not possibly imply that they are in the power of Satan and needing protection. John 17:15 records the Lord’s petition to keep them outside of the evil one.

Since John 17:15 means to keep outside of the evil one, the parallel thought in Revelation 3:10 is to keep the church outside of the hour of testing. Therefore, only a pretribulational rapture would fulfill the promise.

The Martyrs in Revelation 6:9–11 and 7:14

 If Revelation 3:10 means immunity or protection within as other positions insist, several contradictions result. First, if protection in Revelation 3:10 is limited to protection from God’s wrath only and not Satan’s wrath also, then Revelation 3:10 denies the Lord’s request in John 17:15.

Second, if it is argued that Revelation 3:10 means total immunity, then of what worth is the promise in light of Revelation 6:9–11 and 7:14 where martyrs abound? The wholesale martyrdom of saints during the tribulation demands that the promise to the Philadelphian church be interpreted as “keeping out of” the hour of testing, not “keeping within.”

Summary

1. Ek can mean “emergence from within,” or it can mean “a continued state ”
2. Tereo en is used in Acts 12:5, 1 Peter 1:4, and Jude 21, and implies “previous and continued existence within.” Therefore tereo ek logically must be understood as “continued existence ”
3. If the immunity of saints to wrath through the tribulation was intended to teach a posttribulational rapture, then John would have used tereo en, eis, or dia in Revelation 3:10.
4. Consistent with the previous observation, tereo ek meaning “to keep within” in John 17:15 would contradict 1 John 5:19 if, in fact, it implied “previous existence ”
5. If tereo ek in Revelation 3:10 implies “previous existence within,” it contradicts the prayer in John 17:15 in limiting immunity to God’s Or its alleged promise of total immunity is rendered null and void by the slaughter of saints in Revelation 6:9–11 and 7:14.
6. Only the interpretation of tereo ek in Revelation 3:10 which understands that the Philadelphian church will not enter the tribulation, that is, they will be kept out or guarded from entering, satisfies a consistent exegesis of the This finding is in perfect harmony only with a pretribulational understanding of the rapture.