The Rapture in Relation to Endtime
Events
[John F. Walvoord,
President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra.]
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This series, begun in
Bibliotheca Sacra with the January-March, 1975 issue, is
published in book form under the title The Blessed Hope
and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1976). This article is adapted from chapter 11 in the
book. The series will continue through the January-March
1978 issue.]
Probably one of the most difficult problems a
posttribulationist faces is to establish a well-defined order of
events at the second advent. Posttribulationists tend to avoid this
problem. Robert Gundry, more than others, makes an effort to state
and solve the order of events. In the process, however, a number of
acute problems in posttribulationism surface.
The Contribution of 1 Corinthians
15
Generally speaking, posttribulationists do not
dwell at length on 1 Corinthians 15:51-58, one of the major passages
on the rapture. The reason is obvious: This passage contributes
nothing to the posttribulational argument and, in fact, poses a
serious problem.
First Corinthians 15 is one of the great
chapters of Scripture and in many respects it is the central chapter
of this epistle. Because of the numerous theological and moral
problems in the Corinthian church, Paul dwells on correction of
these problems in the first fourteen chapters of 1 Corinthians.
When Paul comes to chapter 15 , he develops the
central aspect of his theology, the gospel with its testimony to the
death of Christ for sin and His resurrection. He then makes the
practical application of the resurrection of Christ to the
believer’s faith and hope. The first fifty verses of 1 Corinthians
15 accordingly deal with the fundamental truths of the death and
resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection of believers who die.
Having laid this foundation, Paul then introduces the subject of the
rapture of the church presented as “a mystery” in 1 Corinthians
15:51.
In referring to the rapture as a mystery, Paul
is reaffirming that this is a New Testament truth not revealed in
the Old Testament, a truth which, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:15,
he had received by a special word from God. He summarizes what will
happen at the rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52: “Listen, I tell you
a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a
flash, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the
trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we
shall be changed” (NIV).
This revelation clearly confirms what had
previously been revealed in 1 Thessalonians 4, but it adds some
details. The rapture will occur in a moment of time. The dead who
are raised will be given imperishable bodies. Living Christians will
be changed and given bodies similar to those being raised from the
dead. All this is in keeping with the principle laid down in 1
Corinthians 15:50 that our present bodies are not suited for heaven.
The rapture of the church is declared to be a
great victory over death and a partial fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecies that the saints will have victory over death
and the grave. On the basis of the fact of the return of Christ for
His own, Paul exhorts the brethren in 1 Corinthians 15:58,
“Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you.
Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you
know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain” (NIV).
In presenting the rapture in this passage, it
should first be noted that Paul declared it to be a mystery. The
doctrine of resurrection is no mystery, for it is clearly revealed
in both the Old and New Testaments. The mystery was that living
saints would be transformed at the time of the rapture and given a
body suited for heaven without going through the experience of
death. Although this had been anticipated in the Old Testament—in
the case of Elijah and Enoch, who were translated and did not
die—there is no intimation in the Old Testament that such an event
would take place when Christ returned to set up His kingdom.
Accordingly the mystery is not resurrection, but translation of the
living.
It should be clear that Paul is presenting this
truth as an imminent hope. On the basis of its expectation, he urges
the brethren to serve the Lord faithfully. In that expectation,
there is not a syllable of warning that their only hope of achieving
this goal would be to pass through the coming time of great
tribulation. Silence about a tribulation following the rapture is
understandable if the rapture occurs first, but if the great
tribulation precedes the rapture, it would have been cruel for the
apostle to hold out the hope of the coming of the Lord for them
when, as a matter of fact, it would be impossible unless they
survived the tribulation.
First Corinthians 15 confirms what is uniformly
true in all the rapture passages, that not a word of warning is ever
given concerning a preceding tribulation. Posttribulationists tend
to ignore this passage because to them it is a problem rather than a
help in supporting their point of view. In the order of events, 1
Corinthians 15 confirms that the rapture comes first, before other
great prophetic events will be fulfilled.
Pretribulational Order of Events
According to pretribulationists, the rapture of
the church occurs at the end of the church age. It is followed by a
period of adjustment in which a dictator and a ten-nation group
emerge in the Middle East. Then a time of peace follows as this
dictator enters into a treaty with Israel, indicated in Daniel 9:27
as intended to last for seven years. However, after the treaty has
continued for three and one-half years, half its intended duration,
the treaty is broken and the peacetime abruptly ends, followed by a
period of persecution.
According to Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15, the
dictator in the Middle East desecrates the Jewish temple of that
day, stops the sacrifices, and begins worldwide persecution of the
Jew. Concurrently he rises to world power and becomes a world ruler
(Rev 13:7). He wields not only political power, but also religious
power (claiming to be God) and economic power (permitting no one to
buy or sell without his permission—Rev 13:8, 17). Because he
blasphemes God and persecutes the saints, the judgments of the great
tribulation follow.
As the great tribulation progresses, major areas
of the world begin rebelling against the dictator. A gigantic war
erupts with great armies from the north, east, and south converging
on the land of Palestine. At the height of this conflict, Jesus
Christ returns in power and glory. He first destroys the armies who
unite to fight the hosts of the Lord, as described in Revelation 19.
The world ruler and the false prophet associated with him are cast
into the lake of fire. Revelation 20 records that the martyrs of the
tribulation will be raised from the dead, and many believe that the
Old Testament saints will be resurrected at the same time according
to Daniel 12:2. A series of judgments will follow that include both
Jews and Gentiles and deal with their eligibility to enter the
millennial kingdom.
Once these judgments are fulfilled, the
millennial kingdom begins, and for a thousand years Christ reigns on
earth. The millennium in turn is followed by the new heaven and the
new earth and the eternal state. Because the rapture of the church
in this point of view takes place before these endtime events, the
pretribulationist has no need to find a place for it in connection
with Christ’s coming to earth. But posttribulationists have no such
option and must find a suitable place for the rapture of the church
among the events of the second coming.
The Posttribulational Order of
Events at the Second Advent
Posttribulationists seem to avoid itemizing
events and their order at the second coming of Christ. Yet
obviously, because the rapture is pictured as the church’s meeting
the Lord in the air, this must be inserted before Christ actually
reaches the earth. As the heavenly hosts proceed from heaven to
earth, the church, according to the posttribulationists, rises from
earth and meets the Lord in the air; as the procession proceeds to
the earth, the church joins with the coming King in extending His
kingdom over the earth.
Amillenarians—who are uniformly
posttribulationists because they deny a literal millennium—believe
that Christ at His second coming introduces the new heaven and the
new earth immediately after a general judgment of all men. They
merge the judgment of the nations, the judgment of Israel, the
judgment of the church, and the judgment of the great white throne
as different aspects of the same event.
Premillenarians who are posttribulationists have
certain problems. A most important fact all posttribulationists
ignore is that the resurrection at the second coming is after
the descent to the earth, not during the event, as Revelation 20:4
makes clear. This contradicts the posttribulational order of events.
If all the righteous are raptured and all the
wicked are put to death, posttribulationists also face the problem
of who will populate the millennial earth. In premillennialism there
is general agreement that there will be people in the flesh on the
earth who will live normal, earthly lives, bearing children,
planting crops, building houses, living, and dying. Most
premillenarian posttribulationists simply avoid this issue. Gundry
is to be commended for making an effort to face this problem and
attempt a solution. But his exegetical efforts to solve this problem
also reveal the many complications a posttribulationist faces in
ordering endtime events, so special attention should be directed to
his contribution.
Gundry’s View of the Judgment of
the Nations
Unlike most posttribulationists, who avoid it,
Gundry confronts the problem of the judgment of the nations in
Matthew 25:31-46. According to the text., this judgment will follow
the second advent of Christ and the establishment of His throne.
Many expositors recognize that the separation of the sheep and the
goats is the separation of the saved from the unsaved on the basis
of the evidence of their salvation and how they treat the Jew.
Though at present unsaved people may be kind to Jews, in the great
tribulation, with anti-Semitism at its height, anyone befriending
the Jews described as “brothers” of the king would do so only
because he is motivated by faith in Christ. Thus while kind
treatment of the Jew is not a ground for salvation, it is an
evidence of it.
Gundry begins his objection to the normal
pretribulational interpretation by citing the fact that in Matthew
12:50—many chapters earlier than Matthew 25—”Jesus defines His
brothers as ‘whoever shall do the will of My Father.’“[1]
Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 166. It seems
to be extreme exegesis to take a reference thirteen chapters away,
occurring in time two years before, as a specific definition.
However, the major problem Gundry faces is determining where this
judgment occurs in the sequence of events.
Virtually everyone except Gundry, whatever the
eschatological viewpoint, considers the judgment of the nations as
occurring approximately at the time of the second coming of Christ.
This, however, poses a problem to posttribulationists because, if
the rapture occurs while Christ is coming from heaven to the earth,
it would automatically separate all believers from unbelievers. Then
there would be no sheep (representing believers) intermingled with
goats (representing unbelievers) on the earth when Christ sets up
His throne. with other standard works on Revelation, yet in general
he holds a futuristic viewpoint.
While it is unnecessary to take up all the
details, attention can first be directed to his section on the
rapture in Revelation 4:1-2. Though many pretribulationists find in
the catching up of John a symbolic presentation of the rapture of
the church, the passage obviously falls somewhat short of an actual
statement of the rapture. Accordingly Gundry has some grounds for
questioning the validity of this argument. In the process, he makes
certain dogmatic statements that must be challenged. He states, for
example, “The book of Revelation treats final events in fuller
detail than does any other portion of the NT. Yet, not a single
verse in Revelation straightforwardly describes a pretribulational
rapture of the Church or advent of Christ.”[3]
Ibid., p. 69.
Pretribulationists rightfully are impatient with
this kind of dogmatism because it is also true that the Book of
Revelation nowhere describes a posttribulational rapture of the
church. The last book of the Bible is specifically dealing with the
second coming of Christ to the earth as its major theme, rather than
with the rapture of the church as such; thus if the rapture indeed
is included in the second coming of Christ, the silence of Scripture
on this point becomes more eloquent than the supposed silence of a
pretribulational rapture. Gundry’s repeated arguing from silence in
his book is quite unwarranted unless he is willing to concede the
validity of the argument from silence as it relates to
pretribulationism. Yet he affirms the argument from silence over and
over again when it suits his purpose for his viewpoint.
One of the familiar pretribulational arguments
based on Revelation 3:10 is debated at length by Gundry.[4]
Ibid., pp. 54-61. Like most posttribulationists who discuss
this subject, Gundry attempts to prove that the Greek preposition
ἐκ does not mean from, but
out from within. The preposition, however, does not stand alone
but is used with the verb τερέω,
normally translated keep. A parallel passage in usage is
found in John 17:15, where Christ prays that His disciples may be
protected from the evil one. Gundry points out that in the
believers’ present experience they are not taken out of the world
but protected from the evil of the world.
What Gundry and most posttribulationists do not
take into consideration is that the Bible expressly reveals that
saints in the great tribulation will not be protected, except in
certain rare instances such as the 144,000, and that the only way
they can be kept “from the hour of trial” (NIV) of the great
tribulation is by being removed.
Accordingly, while Gundry displays a great deal
of erudition in his discussion, it is another illustration of
evading the most important point. The promise to the Philadelphian
church was not that they would be kept through the
tribulation. The promise is, “I will also keep you from the hour
of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test
those who live on the earth” (NIV, italics added). The point is that
they were promised to be kept from the time period of the
tribulation.
Gundry discusses the word hour referring
to the prayer of Christ in John 12:27—”Father, save me from this
hour?” (NIV)—arguing that it is not simply a time period. Here again
Gundry misses the point. The fact is, the Father did not save Christ
from the hour, that is, the time of suffering. While Gundry states
the posttribulational argument as well as it can be stated, it still
falls short of proof that this is what Revelation 3:10 really means.
The problem of this passage turns somewhat on
the question of whether the Philadelphian church is typical of the
true church, the body of Christ. This may be debated, but the fact
remains that even the Philadelphian church as it was historically in
existence in the first century could not have been promised that
they would be kept “from the hour of trial that is going to come
upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth” (Rev 3:10,
NIV) if, as a matter of fact, posttribulationism is the correct
view. All agree that the Philadelphian church died before the
tribulation began, but the question is whether the promise was
valid. Pretribulationists can claim this text for whatever
application is relevant. While the extent of its support of
pretribulationism may be debated, it does not offer any proof at all
for the posttribulational view. The issue is whether the church is
kept through the tribulation or kept from this period.
The Greek preposition διά should have
been used if the concept of through were intended.
Gundry, like many others, debates whether the
twenty-four elders stand for the church. This is an issue that most
scholars agree cannot be finally determined. If the Textus Receptus
is correct, then the twenty-four elders are clearly the church, as
the first person is used in the song of the redeemed in Revelation
5:9-10. If, however, this is changed to the third person as other
texts read, it leaves the question open as to whether these are
angels or men. Thus while the passage offers no support for the
posttribulational view, the support for the pretribulational view
remains under question.
There is, however, the inference that the elders
are wearing crowns of reward, and this implies that their judgment
has already taken place. If they are angels, this is inexplicable,
for it is quite clear that the judgment of angels is later. If they
are the church and the church has been raptured earlier, then the
rewards make sense. Gundry’s argument—that if the crowns imply
rapture, then John’s being caught up could not symbolize the
rapture—may point out an inconsistency, but for those
pretribulationists who do not regard John’s being caught up as the
rapture, it is no clear refutation. Whatever evidence there is about
the twenty-four elders is in favor of pretribulationism, not against
it. This probably explains why Gundry devotes five pages to this
rather tenuous argument. All that posttribulationists can do at this
point is to raise questions; they cannot prove that the
pretribulationists are wrong in their identification of the elders
as the church.
To harmonize the Book of Revelation with
posttribulationism, Gundry has his own way of combining the seals,
trumpets, and bowls of the wrath of God. According to his diagram,
the trumpets begin with the fourth seal; the bowls begin with the
fourth trumpet; the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet, and the
seventh bowl are simultaneous. All this is quite arbitrary, but it
is hardly necessary to debate all the issues involved in order to
determine whether the Book of Revelation is in harmony with the
pre-or posttribulational position. Gundry’s position gives him a
good deal of flexibility and tends to help him in his idea that the
day of the Lord does not begin until the end. It should be evident
to any reader, however, that Gundry is arranging the Book of
Revelation to harmonize with posttribulationism and his peculiar
view of it rather than interpreting it on exegetical considerations.
The usual pretribulational argument that the
church is not mentioned in Revelation 4-18 calls for four pages of
Gundry’s discussion.[5]
Ibid., pp. 77-81. Some of Gundry’s arguments may have partial
relevance and force. But the fact remains that the church is not
mentioned in this period. This does not prove pretribulationism, but
it certainly poses a problem for posttribulationism which Gundry
does not solve.
Probably the most important divergent view of
Gundry is his interpretation of the 144,000 in Revelation 7:1-8 and
14:1-5 . Practically all posttribulationists spiritualize these
twelve tribes that constitute the 144,000 as representing spiritual
Israel, viz., the church. Because he distinguishes Israel from the
church Gundry cannot use this method of equating the 144,000 with
the church.
Gundry may be right that the 144,000 are not
necessarily preachers of the gospel, but he tends to ignore the
evidence that they are genuinely saved. He refers to them as
bondservants (Rev 7:3), significantly omitting a reference to the
fact that they are servants “of God.” Thus Gundry offers the
suggestion that the 144,000 are a Jewish remnant who are unsaved,
who are not members of the church, and who are not raptured. He
holds that when the rapture occurs and they see their Messiah
descending to the earth, they suddenly are converted.
The Scriptures Gundry cites (Zech 3:8-9;
12:9-13:1 ; Mal 3:1-5; Rom 11:26-27) simply do not support the
concept that there is a second chance for people on earth who are
unsaved at the time of Christ’s return. Most posttribulationists
disagree with Gundry here. While Gundry attempts to establish this
point of view, it is a weak argument. As far as the writer knows, no
one in the history of the church has ever held that the 144,000 are
unsaved, orthodox Jews. They hold either that they are members of
the church and are converted or, as pretribulationists usually hold,
that they are saved Israelites. Gundry further holds that the
144,000 “will include both men and women who will populate and
replenish the millennial kingdom of Israel.”[6]
Ibid., p. 82.
While both posttribulationists and
pretribulationists agree that there will be a godly remnant of
Israel awaiting Christ at His return, Gundry’s view of the 144,000
is absolutely unique and is another evidence of his somewhat
desperate attempts to harmonize his very unusual views of
posttribulationism with the Book of Revelation.
Gundry also spends some time refuting the view
that the marriage supper of the lamb in Revelation 19 is another
evidence for a pretribulation rapture. In a normal Oriental wedding,
three stages can be observed—first, the legal stage; second, the
bridegroom’s coming for the bride; and third, the wedding feast.
Pretribulationists stress that, if in Revelation 19 the wedding
feast is announced, the two preceding stages, including the
bridegroom’s coming for the bride, has already been accomplished.
Gundry replies, “To press woodenly the marital relationship of both
Israel and the Church to the Lord would be to say that God is a
bigamist.”[7]
Ibid., p. 85. Such a statement suggests that Gundry is
straining too hard to try to explain a point which, after all, is
not decisive. Whatever weight this may have, it is no help to the
posttribulationist.
Gundry’s View of Armageddon
A peculiarity of Gundry’s view is that he does
not believe the day of the Lord begins until Armageddon. Although
Armageddon is clearly the last hour preceding the second coming of
Christ, Gundry would have us believe that none of the judgments
preceding Armageddon are judgments of the day of the Lord. Gundry
states, “Certain celestial portents will both precede the day of the
Lord (Joel 2:30-31) and follow immediately upon the tribulation
(Matt 24:29). Clearly, the day of the Lord will not begin with the
tribulation or any part of it, for otherwise the heavenly portents
after the tribulation could not be said to precede that day.”[8]
Ibid., p. 95.
The logic of these and succeeding statements, as
well as Gundry’s rather tangled argument in support of his
contention, are all open to question. The facts are that the Book of
Revelation, beginning in chaper 6 , makes very clear that there are
a series of “celestial portents” and that they occur throughout the
whole period, as well as in the climax that marks its close. Most
readers will find Gundry’s argument hard to understand at this
point.
The Book of Revelation teaches that God will
pour out His judgments on the earth over a period of years preceding
Armageddon and that all of these judgments are properly a
description of what the Bible refers to as the day of the Lord. Even
if the various events of the Book of Revelation are shuffled to suit
Gundry’s view, as he attempts to do, it still comes through clearly
that judgments in the day of the Lord occur long before Armageddon;
with this comes the evidence that the day of the Lord itself is
under way. Since this is one of Gundry’s principal contentions and
the view on which his whole superstructure rests, the questionable
character of his evidence weakens his entire argument. If the Book
of Revelation teaches anything, it teaches that God’s judgments fall
upon the earth beginning at chapter 6 and culminating in chapter 19
. For most readers Gundry’s view will not make sense.
Posttribulationism at Its Weakest
Point
As the discussion of the rapture in relation to
the endtime events has indicated, the problem of ordering events is
a major one for posttribulationism and especially for the view of
Robert Gundry. All posttribulationists stumble when trying to place
the rapture in the order of events at the endtime because it does
not fit naturally into the sequence. Amillenarians have less trouble
than premillenarians. But posttribulationists are trying to
establish an event not indicated in any passage dealing with the
second coming of Christ to the earth and without causal relationship
to the events which follow.
The problem is compounded by Gundry’s attempt to
combine dispensationalism with posttribulationism. His view as a
whole stands or falls on three major issues: (1) his view of the
judgment of the nations; (2) his view of the 144,000; and (3) his
view of Armageddon as preceding the beginning of the day of the
Lord. It is not too much to say that Gundry’s position is unique and
is rather clearly the product of his problems in coordinating the
endtime events. If Gundry is wrong in placing the judgment of the
nations at the end of the millennium—as practically all expositors
would hold—and if he is wrong in identifying the 144,000 as unsaved
orthodox Jews who nevertheless are “servants of God,” and if he is
wrong in his attempt to delete all the judgments of God which
precede Armageddon as not being in the day of the Lord, then his
conclusions are also wrong. The ordinary posttribulational teachings
that the judgment of the nations takes place at the second coming of
Christ, that the 144,000 represent saved individuals, and that
divine judgments fall on the earth before Armageddon are far more
tenable than Gundry’s point of view.
Nevertheless the problem of all
posttribulationists comes out more graphically in Gundry than in any
other posttribulational interpreter. The rapture of the church just
does not fit endtime events unless it is made the first in the
series and before the tribulation. The unique views of Gundry
actually pose more problems to the posttribulationist than they do
to the pretribulationist.
In attempting to relate the rapture to endtime
events, the deep-seated problems of posttribulationism surface again
and again. The basic problem of posttribulationists—that their
theological inductions are not based on all the facts and that they
tend to be selective in their supporting evidence, ignoring the
problems—leaves their conclusions in question. Because of the
comprehensive nature of scriptural revelation in both the Old and
New Testaments on endtime events, for there to be a complete
omission of the rapture in connection with the second coming of
Christ becomes a most difficult problem. Gundry’s argument is
complicated by his attempt to be literal, which only results in
entangling him in various conclusions which are unique to him and a
practice of using principles that do not lead to his conclusions. If
posttribulationism stands or falls on the reasonableness of his
analysis of endtime events, it ought to be clear that
posttribulationism fails to support its major contentions.
|