Part XIII.1
KEPT FROM THE HOUR CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE RAPTURE DEBATE A mounting wave of interest has swept across America and the United Kingdom on the subject of the return of Christ. Near the crest of the wave is the turbulent question, being asked with ever increasing intensity: “Will Christ return before the Tribulation, or must the Church pass through that dread hour?”
Through the many years since the first publication of this volume, among evangelical Christians there has been a sustained interest in this frequently debated question. Perhaps the increasing social violence and governmental upheavals of the present era have encouraged such concern. Whatever the cause, much new material has been written as the Rapture debate enthusiastically continues. The time of the Rapture and its relationship to the coming Tribulation has become one of the burning issues of Biblical study and Christian theology.
Kept from the Hour was first written as a doctoral dissertation, completed in 1952 and published by the ZondervanPublishing House in 1956, followed by Marshall, Morgan and Scott (London) in 1958 while the author was professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot Theological Seminary, Los Angeles. While this volume makes no claim at being exhaustive, it does present the four main positions on the time of the Rapture and most of the primary issues and Scriptures involved. Subsequent volumes by many other writers have developed these themes and filled in a host of exegetical details.
Already in the early 1950’s there was considerable interest in the time of the Rapture, stirred up no doubt by a blistering attack upon the prevailing pretribulationalview by the publication of The Approaching Advent of Christ, authored by a Presbyterian missionary to Brazil, Alexander Reese. Persuasive and “embarrassingly bombastic” (Gundry), Reese’s book became the standard posttribulationalpolemic and later writers have borrowed extensively from his attitudes and arguments.
Although the Rapture debate has four main viewpoints, in the intervening years the discussion has largely narrowed to an increasingly detailed and technical debate between the advocates of pretribulationalism and the advocates of posttribulationalism. Some of the best theological minds of our day have been attracted to each side of the issue and a considerable literature has been generated. With all due respect for each author, it is our purpose here to review the books which, in the opinion of the writer, have the most to contribute or which take positions worthy of consideration. THE BLESSED HOPE In 1956, almost simultaneously with the publication of Kept from the Hour, there appeared a major posttribulational defense entitled The Blessed Hope, written by George E. Ladd, former professor of history and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Dr. Ladd sets forth and defends the proposition that “the Blessed Hope is the second coming of Christ and not a pretribulationalrapture.” Ladd is a Premillennialistwho believes in an infallible, authoritative Scripture, but who now marshals the primary arguments in support of a posttribulationalRapture.
Unlike Reese, he is generally courteous, although he falls away from this high ground when he joins with Oswald J. Smith in labeling the Pretrib view “a dangerous heresy,” because it (in Ladd’s words) “sacrifices one of the main motives for world-wide missions, viz., hastening the attainment of the Blessed Hope” (146, 150). This simply is not true, for Pretrib missionaries and overseas professors have gone worldwide preaching and teaching Jesus Christ and His “so great salvation,” possibly in far greater numbers than their Posttribbrethren. The Blessed Hope is promoted on its front cover as “A Biblical Study of The Second Advent and The Rapture.” It is therefore quite surprising to discover how little attention is given to the acknowledged three primary Scriptures on the Rapture, namely 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and John 14:1-3. Nor is it difficult to discover why they are neglected. They simply do not teach posttribulationalism! They give no suggestion of Tribulation preceding the Rapture, or of an earthly reign of Christ immediately following. They set forth the Rapture as a comforting hope, and it would be of small comfort to tell suffering saints that far worse things might be in store. They distinguish the Rapture from the Revelation by calling the Rapture a “mystery,” a truth heretofore unrevealed (Colossians 2:6), and not like the Second Coming which is clearly taught in the Old Testament (Zechariah 14:4; Zechariah 14:9, etc.). They promise that translated saints will be taken directly to the Father’s house, clearly a reference to heaven. Small wonder that Ladd and others almost ignore these vital Rapture passages.
Rather, he writes a whole chapter disputing dispensationalism and two long chapters, almost a third of the book, on the historical argument for posttribulationalism. He erroneously defines dispensationalismas “the method of deciding in advance which Scriptures have to do with Israel,” (130) and falsely argues that pretribulationalists make the Tribulation entirely Jewish. In his book, The Rapture Question, Walvoord comments that Ladd has set up “a straw man” to knock down, for pretribulationalistsagree that the Tribulation finalizes the “times of the Gentiles,” and is a period when God brings judgment upon rebellious nations. Ladd then makes matters worse by suggesting that the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:2-8) may represent the “true Israel of God,” by which he means the Church. But then he fails to explain why the Church originates from twelve tribes - are these the major denominations? Significantly, he can find no clear reference to the Church in any of the Tribulation passages.
Concerning the history of the Pretrib doctrine, Ladd asserts: “Pretribulationismwas an unknown teaching until the rise of the Plymouth Brethren among whom the doctrine originated” (162). He names as Darby’s source an eloquent but erratic early charismatic preacher by the name of Edward Irving, about the year 1830. Many will resent the statement: “. . . that supposed revelation ... came not from Holy Scripture, but from that which false pretended to be the Spirit of God” (41). This ugly implication that pretribulationism came from a Satanic source is a quotation from Tregelles, but Ladd includes it as if it were true. He also minimizes the fact that a host of God’s people are convinced that the idea of escaping Tribulation sprang from the words of Christ, John and Paul, and is rooted in the Apostolic hope of Christ’s imminent return.
Ladd gives no real evidence that Irving was pretribulationalbeyond the fact that he proclaimed “the imminence of Christ’s coming.” If this is sufficient evidence of pretribulationalism, then on Ladd’s own admission the early Church must have been pretribulational. While most will agree that the early Church fathers were not entirely clear on the details of their eschatology, “many posttribulationalists, such as J. Barton Payne, concede that the early church fathers believed in imminencyand that this is the historic position” (Walvoord1976, 47).
It is becoming increasingly evident that manyBible students in the general are of Irving believed and actively taught that the Church would not go through the coming Great Tribulation. This came about by a return to Biblical studies and the rise of futurism in the interpretation of prophetic Scripture. After centuries of neglect the whole doctrine of Christ’s return was being rediscovered, including a Pretrib Rapture, and it was attended with spiritual power and great blessing wherever it was proclaimed.
Although Ladd effectively presents the Posttrib position, there are many chinks in his theological armor. As authorities he prefers to choose and quote authors who agree with him even those who may appear immature or Amillennial in their eschatology. He attacks the concept of a “secret Rapture,” and thinks that by refuting “secrecy” he has disposed of a Pretribresurrection and translation of the saints. He spends a full chapter discussing the Greek vocabulary for the Blessed Hope and in so doing attacks a non-representative position. While it is true that an early writer endeavored to make parousia a technical word for the Rapture, it is now broadly recognized that the three distinctive Greek words associated with the return of Christ are non-technical and apply equally to the Rapture and the Second Coming (cf. Pentecost 156-8; Stanton 20-22; Walvoord 1957, 155-58). The term “secret” and a technical use of parousiaare no longer valid issues in the Rapture debate.
Ladd declares that we cannot accept a view which is not “explicitly taught” in Scripture, but later he makes the damaging admission: “With the exception of one passage, the author will grant that the Scripture nowhere explicitly states that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation” (5). That one exception is in Revelation 20:1-15, where “the Resurrection is placed at the return of Christ in glory.” But such an argument merely assumes that it sets out to prove. It ignores the obvious fact that the “first resurrection” is first in qualityand not in time. For the first resurrection has many stages (1 Corinthians 15:23), and prior to the Revelation 20:1-15 resurrection there are others, such as the resurrection of Christ, the raising of certain Old Testament saints (Matthew 27:51-53), the resurrection of God’s two faithful witnesses (Revelation 11:11-12), and the raising of the dead in Christ at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16). These are all included in the “first resurrection” because all are righteous. In discussing the nature of the coming Tribulation, Ladd correctly states: “It is inconceivable that the Church will suffer the wrath of God” (122). But then he goes on to speak of unparalleled bodily suffering and widespread martyrdom of the saints the world during the Tribulation, making this period “the most fearful the world has ever seen.” “Martyrdom has ever been a mark of faithfulness to Christ.... Why should it be any different at the end?” (129).
He fails to explain how the saints will be protected from divine judgments which are worldwide, such as the sun scorching men with fire, the pollution of all fountains and waters, devastating earthquakes and possible nuclear holocaust. “There is no way to escape it,” says Blackstone, “but to be taken out of the world by the Rapture, in as much as the Great Tribulation covers the whole habitable earth” (Biederwolf, 550). In addition, Ladd waters down the command to “watch” for the return of Christ, saying this does not mean “looking for” the event but merely a “spiritual and moral wakefulness.” He hardly considers the removal of the Restrainer with its strong pretribulationalimplications. He makes Revelation 3:10 teach “a promise of preservation and deliverance in and through” the hour rather than physical removal from the hour itself, and fails to note that martyred saints have not been preserved or delivered (Revelation 13:7). In arguing against an interval between Rapture and Revelation, he ridicules the idea that seven years would give God enough time to reward the saints at the Judgment Seat of Christ, as though God were limited by human chronology! He then is forced to merge the Marriage Supper of the Lamb with the coming of Christ to wage war and judgment.
Also unanswered is the important Pretrib argument, that if every living saint is raptured at the Second Coming and none of the wicked are allowed to enter the Kingdom, this would make unnecessary the separation of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:1-46, and would leave none on earth in their natural physical bodies to populate the Millennial Kingdom.
Dr. Ladd is to be commended for his generally gracious attitude and his appeal to hold God’s truth in love and the unity of the Spirit. Certainly those who “love His appearing” should close ranks and stand together on the great fundamentals of the Word of God. But his presentation leaves much of the evidence for a pretribulationalRapture relatively untouched and fails to convince this reviewer that the Blessed Hope implies the prospect of martyrdom in the Tribulation rather than the daily hope of meeting Christ face to face. IS THE RAPTURE NEXT? A rather simple but effective presentation of the Pretrib viewpoint was published by Leon Woodin 1956, under the title Is the Rapture Next? It represents the result of a faculty study group of the Grand Rapids Baptist Theological Seminary and Bible Institute, who “entered the consideration with open minds to determine what the Scriptures had to say.”
Avoiding all personalities and lesser theological disputes, the procedure was to examine and attempt to harmonize two groups of Scripture: (1) Those which supply the stronger reasons for saying “Yes, the Rapture will precede the Tribulation,” and (2) “those which normally are thought to say No!, the Church will not be delivered from that time.” The final conclusion was reached that the latter group of verses do not say No at all, but “properly interpreted, are very much in keeping with the Yes answers” (9). The following are among the contributing conclusions drawn: (1) The coming Tribulation is in a class by itself, designed with the purpose of punishment rather than purification. “The Church, whose punishment has been borne by Christ, logically should be expected to escape such a time.” (2) While “no definite Scripture passages indicate that the Church will then be on earth,” other passages such as Revelation 3:10 say clearly that it will not be here. (3) The Tribulation “has a Jewish character which is hard to reconcile with the Church’s presence.” (4) The Scriptures which urge an attitude of watchfulness for, or else joyful anticipation of, Christ’s coming “clearly imply that there will be no warning signal for last-minute preparation.” (5) The expression “end of the age” does not connote cessation of time “but rather completion of program by means of consummating events.” (6) When, in the Olivet Discourse, Christ answered the questions of His disciples relative to signsand times, He limited His answers to the Jewish aspect of last things because “the nature of the disciples’ thinking” still related to the predicted Kingdom rather than to the future Church. (7) The Posttrib argument from the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:4-6 is clearly answered when it is recognized that “the word first is not intended to be taken in the sense of initial, but rather a reference to a type of resurrection, namely that of the righteous as contrasted with that of the wicked” (117-20). The author concludes that our personal decision concerning the Rapture debate is significant because it results in “quite a different outlook” as we watch for Christ’s coming. THE RAPTURE QUESTION A major contribution to pretribulationalliterature was made in 1957 with the publication of The Rapture Questionby John F. Walvoord, former President and now the Chancellor of the Dallas Theological Seminary. From a lifetime of studying and graduate level teaching of Biblical eschatology, Walvoorddiscusses in depth all of the primary issues and gives detailed exegesis of the relevant Biblical passages.
Walvoord sets forth the important of the Rapture question, which is one of the main areas of dispute in conservative eschatology” (8). He continues with an extensive study of the meaning of the Church, significant in the Rapture debate because Posttribs normally and without proof assume “that the word churchis synonymous with the terms elect and saints,” and hold that “saints of all past, present, and future ages are included in the church.” While all agree that there are some of God’s “elect” present in the Tribulation (according to Pretribsthey turn to Christ after the Rapture), if these are to be uncritically classified as members of the Church “it leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church will go through the tribulation.” So widespread is this false assumption that Walvoord declares: “It is therefore not too much to say that the rapture question is determined more by ecclesiology than eschatology” (16). It might be added that if the word “elect” belongs exclusively to the Church, then the Church must include the “elect angels” and indeed all the saints since Adam!
Walvoord continues his discussion with the historical argument, the central feature of which is the doctrine of imminency. He gives important quotations from as early as the second century to demonstrate that the early Church lived in constant expectation of the coming of the Lord. And if the Rapture is truly imminent, it follows that it must be pretribulational.
Under the “hermeneutical argument,” he warns that many posttribulationalists tend to depart from normal literal interpretation, which is the hallmark of Premillennialism, toward a spiritualization of the key Tribulation passages. He goes on to show the “complete lack of evidence for the presence of the Church in the Tribulation,” distinguishing clearly between “tribulation” as a general condition of suffering or persecution and “Tribulation” which refers to the specific period of the outpoured wrath of God. “It has been shown that the purpose of the Tribulation is to purge and judge Israel and to punish and destroy Gentile power. In neither aspect is the church the object of the events of the period” (72).
Dr. Walvoorddiscusses the work of the Holy Spirit in the present age and the significance of the removal of the Restrainer. He presents the Judgment Seat of Christ in heaven and the judgment of both Israel and the Gentiles upon earth as necessary intervening events between Rapture and Revelation, and finds Ladd’s view that seven years would not be sufficient to review the lives of Church saints bordering on the ridiculous. HE counters the charge of Oswald T. Allis that the Pretrib view is “singularly calculated ...” to appeal to those selfish and unworthy impulses from which no Christian is wholly immune” by declaring: “Unless martyrdom is something to be earnestly desired and cheerfully sought, it is difficult to see why it is so contrary to Christian principles to desire to avoid these contingencies” (133). The last four chapters of the book take up a detailed examination of the three alternate Tribulation positions, closing with a most significant summary chapter entitled “Fifty arguments for Pretribulationalism.” Coming as they do from a trusted scholar whom many consider the dean of conservative, Biblical theologians for the past three decades, those who differ would do well to evaluate carefully these 50 arguments.
THINGS TO COME In 1958 there was first published an excellent and extensive (633 pages) overview of Biblical Eschatology called Things To Come, written by J. Dwight Pentecost, who since 1955 and until recently has served on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary. While his volume covers the entire scope of Bible prophecy, it is important to the Rapture debate because of its detailed examination of the four main positions and other related matters, such as the identity of the Restrainer, the position of Israel and the Gentiles in the Tribulation, and the resurrections and judgments normally associated with the Second Advent of Christ.
Pentecost strongly answers the notion of one general and final resurrection and supports the view that the resurrection of the Church is but one of the orders (tagma) found in 1 Corinthians 15:23. Therefore the mention of the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:5-6 does not date the Rapture as posttribulational as the opponents of the Pretrib view constantly proclaim. As previously mentioned, there are many stages in the “first resurrection,” for it is “first” in quality rather than in time, distinguishing it from the resurrection of the unrighteous dead, which is the “second resurrection.”
Pentecost holds that “Pretribulationrapturism rests essentially on one major premise - the literal method of interpretation of the Scripture” (193). This he sustains by the cumulative evidence of 28 “Essential Arguments of the Pretribulation Rapturist,” all expressed convincingly and well supported by Scripture.
These include the scope and purpose of the seventieth week, which is judgmental and “will see the wrath of God poured out upon the whole earth.” The concept of the Church as a mystery, “not revealed until the rejection of Christ by Israel ... distinct in its inception ... certainly separate at its conclusion.” The distinctions between Israel and the Church show conclusively that these two groups are not to be united as a single entity. The doctrine of imminence “forbids the participation of the church in any part of the seventieth week.” The necessity for an interval between Rapture and Revelation to allow time for the Judgment Seat of Christ, the presentation of the Church as the Bride of Christ, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The 24 elders, “representative of the saints of this present age ... resurrected, in heaven, judged, rewarded, enthroned ...raptured before the seventieth week begins.” The sealed 144,000 from Israel, redeemed but with a “special Jewish relationship,” indicating that “the church must no longer be on earth.” The chronology of the Book of Revelation, which poses great difficulty for both the Midtrib and the Posttrib Rapture positions (193-218). The full 28 arguments strongly support a pretribulational conclusion, and demonstrate clearly that the significance of the Rapture debate goes far beyond the mere chronology of our Lord’s return. Important also is Pentecost’s inclusion of a history of both Premillennialismand Amillennialism, and also a chapter setting forth the essential rules for the interpretation of prophecy. THE IMMINENT APPEARING OF CHRIST In 1962 there was published another major defense of the posttribulation position entitled The Imminent Appearing of Christ, by J. Barton Payne, at the time an Associate Professor of Old Testament in the Graduate School of Theology of Wheaton College. In keeping with a host of other students of Biblical Eschatology, Payne accepts the Premillennial view of the return of Christ. But in some aspects of his Rapture viewpoint he stands alone, subscribing as he does to the imminencyof the return of Christ which Posttribs normally repudiate, yet coupling it with a strong posttribulationalconclusion. He defends both of these positions, declaring that they were cardinal views held by the Apostolic Church. However, he should have seen that many early Church fathers were posttribulational simply because they believed they were then living in the Tribulation. Their theology was overly dominated by their strong persecution experience. However since they were in error in equating Roman persecution with the predicted Tribulation, it follows that they were also in error in drawing a posttribulational conclusion.
Payne writes off all Pretribsas “dispensationalists,” while most fellow Posttribsare labeled “predominantly negative” because they are simply “reacting post-tribulationalists.” His own unique position he calls the “classical Christian hope.” The doctrine of imminency, largely based on the hope and comfort of Christ’s appearing, coupled with the exhortations to look and watch with expectancy, is normally considered one of the strong supportive arguments for the pretribulationalposition. How amazing it is that a future event, which will take place on one calendar day of human history, should be so worded that it becomes the hope and joyful expectation of Christians down through the running centuries! There is nothing else comparable to this in the history of the Christian Church. Now while we are glad that Payne acknowledges and supports the truth of imminency, it must be noted that he applies it to the Second Coming of Christ to earth following the Tribulation rather than to the Rapture itself.
How then does he explain the clearly described events of the predicted Tribulation, such as the reign of Antichrist, the defiling of the Temple, and the many judgments of the outpoured wrath of God so clearly revealed in the Book of Revelation? These “alleged antecedents” of the Tribulation, says Payne, do not destroy the imminencyof the Second Coming for they are already past, fulfilled in early Church history or in the contemporary problems of Christianity!
While Payne argues vigorously, and perhaps to the beginning student convincingly, his conclusions strike this reviewer as inconclusive and strongly opinionated. To preserve the imminency of the return of Christ he is forced to adopt a non-literal interpretation of the entire Tribulation period. Says he: “The great tribulation, as classically defined, is potentially present, and perhaps almost finished” (133). The wrath of God poured out upon those who worship the Beast and upon the cities of the nations and great Babylon (Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19) “seem to relate to the now historic fall of Rome” (140). The seventieth week of Daniel, the rebuilt Temple and the abomination of desolation which shall defile it (Ezekiel 40:1-49 w:1-49; Ezekiel 41:1-26; Ezekiel 42:1-20; Ezekiel 43:1-27; Ezekiel 44:1-31; Ezekiel 45:1-25; Ezekiel 46:1-24 ew-46; Daniel 9:26-27; Daniel 11:36-37), declares Payne, “all of which are seen to lie in the portion that has ceased to have prophetic relevance beyond the time of Titus” (153). In Revelation, Payne continues, “the universal rule (13:7), the emperor worship (v. 8), and the martyring of the saints (v. 7) fit ancient Rome, and ancient Rome only” (155). “The commercial activity that is described in such detail in 18:11-19 is distinctly that of the first century.” The fall of Rome and the balance of power found in the ten horns (17:16) “corresponds with such inspired truthfulness to fall of the historic Roman empire, dated in A.D. 476” (155). Pompously, Payne speaks of the “audacity” of those who require “a future reenactment of what had already been completely fulfilled.” But what of the predictive signs signaling the imminent return of Jesus Christ which history cannot satisfy, such as the meteoric rise and career of the Devil’s Antichrist, the godless activities of the False Prophet, and the destruction of three of the ten kingdoms which shall arise in the endtime (Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:24; Revelation 13:1-18; Revelation 17:12)? For Antichrist, Payne (at the time of writing) suggests “an unusually apt candidate for the Antichrist is Nikita Khrushchev right today!” (121). For the False Prophet, he suggests “the papacy, or some other anti-Biblical, ecumenical religious development.” And for the three unfortunate kingdoms Daniel’s little horn will destroy, he offers: “If Christ were to come back today, who would they be? The Hungarians ... constitute a pitiable possibility” (108). All of these appear to be strange and obviously erroneous conclusions.
Large passages of Revelation are made to coincide with the contemporary scene. For example, “the four horsemen of the Apocalypse - aggression, war, famine and death ... were never more alive than today” (112). The two witnesses of Revelation 11:1-19, he suggests, are “a church that witnesses to the law and to the prophets ... an inevitable torment to the world.” Payne continues: “It seems that in many places now, as never before, when Christians are liquidated ‘they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them, and make merry.” Moreover, “in Latin America, and in other areas of Roman Catholic domination today, the prohibition of burial rights to Evangelicals is far from unknown” (118).
Now while it is sadly true that there are Christians today who have laid down their lives for the cause of Christ, to apply this to the two witnesses of Revelation 11:1-19 is an example of flagrant spiritualization and of prophetic Scripture.
What then of signs which obviously have not yet been fulfilled? Says Payne, “the signs are brief ... giving the Christian the opportunity to pull his car over to the side of the road, but perhaps not much more” (92). So brief are the remaining signs before the believer is caught up in the Rapture! And all of these rare pronouncements simply to reconcile the truth of imminency with the theory of posttribulationalism! The only necessary conclusion to be drawn is that the early Church was correct when it looked for the imminent return of Christ, but very wrong when it identified the Roman persecution with the predicted Tribulation period. If indeed some were posttribulational, it was their suffering and not the prophetic Scriptures which became the essential basis of this persuasion.
Payne’s fellow Posttrib, Robert H. Gundry, includes in his book The Church and the Tribulation an “Addendum on Imminent Posttribulationalism,” which is a severe and detailed refutation of Payne’s position. It requires the possibility, says Gundry, “that we have progressed to the very end of the tribulation” (193). We cannot suppose that all the great endtime events have passed unnoticed, for “they are revelatorysigns and must therefore be recognizable upon occurrence.” Thus “Payne’s potential but uncertain fulfillment falls to the ground” (194).
Continues Gundry, Payne is wrong in denying “the principle of double fulfillment.” His view “lacks historical perspective.” It fails to provide an adequate fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, “which describes a complex of events immediately preceding the return of Christ” (200). There follows much more detail to support Gundry’s very critical evaluation of Payne’s position. In addition to the conflicts generated by the attempts to reconcile the imminency of our Lord’s return with Payne’s so-called “pasttribulational” view, other problems quickly rear their heads. Declares the author, John 14:3 is “irrelevant” to the time of the Rapture because it does not teach being translated to the Father’s house. Rather, “the interpretation which seems the more plausible contextually is that at a believer’s death ‘I come and will receive you unto myself’ in glory” (74). This makes John 14:3 a funeral promise rather than a blessed expectation of Christ’s return!
Payne also claims that Romans 5:9 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9 are likewise “irrelevant passages,” for the “need simply to imply no more than God’s certain condemnation of sin.... He is delivering us from the wrath, right now.” Thus, they do not apply to the Rapture question. But such an assertion ignores the fact that the context of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is “waiting for God’s Son from heaven,” and that for 5:9 the prior context is the “day of the Lord,” which certainly includes the Tribulation. His discussion of the primary passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, is extremely brief and fails to explain how a Posttrib Rapture could be of comfort to early believers. While agreeing with him that “the chapter division is here an unhappy one,” Payne seems not to notice that Paul discusses the Rapture before he discusses the day of the Lord - a perfect pretribulational order.
Rather, he limits his exegesis to the expression “to meet the Lord in the air,” explaining that “the ones who do the meeting then turn around and accompany the one who is met for the rest of his journey.... The church is to meet Christ in the air and thus join in His triumphant procession down to earth.” Since they “advance without pause,” the Judgment Seat of Christ “could be instantaneous, in the air” (136). This would hardly comfort Dr. Ladd who argues, as we have seen, that seven years would not be long enough to judge and give reward to all his saints. The return of Christ for His Church is certainly a wonderful hope, and The Imminent Appearing of Christ is an attractive theme and title. But in the writer’s opinion, much of the content of this book is a fallacious interpretation of prophetic Scripture. Certainly, it is a sad deterioration from the Bible and theology he was taught by the faculty during his own years at Wheaton College and its Graduate School. As a theologian who has spent a lifetime in the study and teaching of eschatology, it is with great regret that this review judges Payne’s central conclusion to be wrong, his objections to pretribulationalismanswerable, and his attitude toward his Pretribbrethren frequently abrasive.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY A much greater and less controversial work was published by J. Barton Payne in 1973, called the Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, and subtitled “The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment.” Because of its scope and scholarly content it is a volume of considerable value, weakened no doubt by Payne’s continual adherence to the viewpoints previously discussed.
Thus, the Rapture is minimized and the Church goes no further than meeting Christ in the air and returning immediately to earth on the Mount of Olives. In the words of Payne, this is “our rapture to Jerusalem” (561), which is certainly a peculiar view! The Restrainer is not seen as the Holy Spirit but is identified as “lawful government,” Paul using veiled language “as a means for avoiding offence to the Roman power” (565). Revelation 3:10 applies only to the first century church at Philadelphia, for “their devotion will carry them through the storm of Roman persecution” (606). Such an explanation completely ignores the immediate context found in verse 11, which is the return of Christ at the end of the Church age. The prophecy and blessed promise of John 14:1-3 is skipped without mention. The 144,000 witnesses of Revelation 7:1-17 become “a chosen youth group of the church, the Israel of God” (597). And the Rapture is identified with Revelation 14:1-7 where the representative groups of the tribes of Israel are now seen in heaven! Much of this, of course, is one man’s opinion and cannot fail to disappoint those who now look for God’s Son from heaven. THE CHURCH AND THE TRIBULATION
Also in 1973 there was published yet another significant book length presentation of the posttribulationalview, entitled The Church and the Tribulation by Robert H. Gundry, Professor of Religious Studies at Westmont College.
While Payne is a preterist, holding that much of the Revelation was fulfilled in the Roman persecution of the early Church, Gundry is a futurist, joining with Pretribsand most of his fellow Posttribs in placing Revelation 4:1-11; Revelation 5:1-14; Revelation 6:1-17; Revelation 7:1-17; Revelation 8:1-13; Revelation 9:1-21; Revelation 10:1-11; Revelation 11:1-19; Revelation 12:1-17; Revelation 13:1-18; Revelation 14:1-20; Revelation 15:1-8; Revelation 16:1-21; Revelation 17:1-18; Revelation 18:1-24; Revelation 19:1-21; Revelation 20:1-15; Revelation 21:1-27; Revelation 22:1-21 in the eschatological future. Payne strongly believes in the imminency of our Lord’s return, while Gundry just as strongly rejects imminency, declaring that those “who find imminence in the Ante-Nicene fathers are grasping at straws” (182). Posttribs typically scorn dispensationalismand its implications, but Gundry upholds this method of Scripture interpretation, especially in its important distinction between Israel and the Church. Unlike Payne, who things that John 14:1-3 speaks of the believer’s death, Gundry holds it to be a promise of the Rapture. Also unlike most of his fellow Posttribs he does not “ignore the distinctions between tribulation in general and the time of unprecedented tribulation at the end of the age” (49).
Such extreme divergence of opinion within the posttribulational camp even on the primary issues of the Rapture debate makes critical analysis most difficult. It leads one to suspect that the Posttrib conclusion may be based more upon divergent human opinion than upon sound Biblical exegesis. In his book, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, Walvoord discusses four distinct schools of posttribulationalism which have emerged in the twentieth century (21ff.), of which Gundry’s “entirely new approach” is but one. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, this notable lack of theological unanimity among posttribulationalistsreflects a fundamental flaw in their interpretive system.
There is considerable complexity to Gundry’s arguments. He agrees of necessity with pretribulationalists that the Church will be exempt from the outpoured wrath of God (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9), declaring “the theological necessity that God’s wrath not touch a saved person” (46). But then he endeavors to distinguish different kinds of distress in the Tribulation period: the wrath of God upon the unregenerate, the ravages of Satanic and demonic forces, violence which stems from man’s own wickedness, the persecution of saints by Antichrist, and the final chastisement upon Israel (46). By so doing he relieves the severity of the Tribulation for the saint, making it more a time of Satanic wrath than divine wrath, thus endeavoring to give the Church safe passage through the Tribulation. Revelation 13:7 denies such a possibility.
He rearranges the sequence of judgments in the Revelation so that the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet and all seven bowls of wrath are “clustered at the end” of the period in one great “cataclysmic blast of judgment at Armageddon” (75-77). He argues that the wrath associated with the seal judgments (Revelation 6:15-17) falls only on unbelievers. The passage describing the multitude which “came out of great tribulation” (Revelation 7:9-17) is called an “episodical vision which leaps to the end of the tribulation” (76). From all this, Gundry concludes: “Divine wrath does not blanket the entire seventieth week, probably not even the latter half of it, but concentrates at the close” (63). After this ingenious scheme the Church goes through the entire Tribulation but is spared its primary judgments and the outpoured wrath of God!
Gundry is forced to admit that there is no clear reference in the Bible to a posttribulationalRapture of the Church. But then he holds that with many clear references to the resurrection of Old Testament saints and a gathering of the Tribulation “elect,” which is “indisputably located after the tribulation,” it is implied that the Rapture will occur there also.
Posttribulationalists must then add to all this end-time activity the gathering and judgment of the nations, the conversion of national Israel, the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, the defeat of invading armies at Armageddon, the destruction of the Beast and the False Prophet, the fulfillment of dire Old Testament prophecies concerning end-time judgments, plus the final catastrophes of the seven seals, seven trumpets and seven vials of wrath. All in close proximity at the Second Advent of Christ! Posttribs thus have a way of lumping together all these future events into an already heavily overloaded “day of the Lord,” and they do so without really producing any orderly chronology of these events.
Why not a seven year period of wrath and judgment to give time for all this activity, as the Scriptures seem to indicate? The Church would escape both divine and satanic wrath by being translated with rejoicing prior to that final period of trouble, and there would be adequate time for the many other activities and events normally associated with Christ’s appearing.
Among his unique views, Gundry holds that “some of the wicked will survive the tribulation.” Hence, the judgment of the nations will be after the millennium. He believes that the 144,000 will be “orthodox (though unconverted) Jews,” both men and women, who will resist the Antichrist and go into the Kingdom to “populate and replenish the millennial kingdom of Israel” (82). The redeemed multitude who come out of the great Tribulation “constitute the last generation of the Church” (80).
He escapes the clear Pretribinference of John 14:1-3 by declaring that the “Father’s house” is simply “a metaphor for the place of believers in the Father’s domestic domain.” So Christ is not promising that He will return and transport believers to heaven, but rather “He is going to prepare for them spiritual abodes within His own person. Dwelling in these abiding places they belong to God’s household” (154). Such an approach is commonly called “spiritualizing,” yielding an odd and novel interpretation to a familiar and blessed promise.
Concerning the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17, Gundry gives some credence to “the prevalent view in the early Church” that the restraint of iniquity may be that of “divinely ordained human government.” He suggests that Paul speaks vaguely of fear that “the letter might fall into wrong hands and ... be considered a teaching of sedition” (124). But this view fails, for human government is not removed during the Tribulation. Rather it is expressed by the presence of ten kings and then seized and dominated by the Antichrist.
Gundry goes on to favor the identification of the Restrainer as the Holy Spirit, for several of the early Church fathers held this view. Further, “it would seem that a person is required to restrain a person.” Also, the change of gender from the neuter to the masculine conforms to the same shift in gender when Paul writes concerning the Spirit. Thus far we would agree. However, Gundry then argues that the Greek grammar does not demand removal from the world. Rather, he says, the Spirit merely blocks the entrance of the Antichrist “until the appointed moment when He will step out of the way and allow the man of lawlessness to stride onstage before the admiring eyes of mankind” (127).
He further declares: “His partial withdrawal in a retrogression to the beggarly elements and immature status of the old covenant would amount to an annulment of Christ’s exhaltation” (126). How well he argues, and with such eloquent language! But what is he saying, and is his argument reliable? For Satan, cast down to the earth having great wrath (Revelation 12:12), does imply a major removal of restraint during that period. Moreover, to declare that the return of the Spirit to heaven would diminish His “Pentecostal fullness and power” might, by implication, suggest that Christ also has limited His power and ability to save just because He, too, has shifted from earth to heaven. The language of the text clearly implies a removal of the Spirit before the unveiling of Antichrist. He does not merely step to one side; rather, He is “taken out of the way.” Then, because the Spirit abides within the Church forever (John 14:16) and since the Church finds no mention in the many passages describing the Tribulation, it is fair to conclude that the removal of the Spirit has set the time of the removal of the Church as pretribulational.
Much more needs to be said in response to Gundry’s complex defense of posttribulationalism, but it would probably take another book equal to his 200 plus pages - far beyond the scope of this present review. He writes with considerable scholarship and debating skill, and his arguments are stimulating if not entirely convincing. A far more extensive answer to Gundry’s position is available in two books by John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation and The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition(to be reviewed later in this series).
Gundry departs from the views of his fellow Posttribs so frequently that Walvoordis forced to conclude: “His arguments, in the main, are new and propound a form of posttribulationalism never advanced before.” This causes him to “refute most of the posttribulationalists who have preceded him.” Indeed, “in a number of particular judgments, if Gundry is right, every previous expositor of the Bible has been wrong” (1976, 19, 60-62).
Yet another commentary upon The Church and the Tribulation may be found in the chapter entitled “The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position” by Paul D. Feinberg, in the book The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? However, the most extensive critique of Gundry’s book discovered thus far is the 75 page syllabus by John A. Sproule, entitled A Revised Review of The Church and the Tribulation by Robert H. Gundry. A scholarly presentation, it is especially helpful in its Greek exegesis of the cardinal Scriptures and in its firm answers to Gundry’s attack against the Pretrib concept of imminency. On this issue, Sprouleconcludes that Gundry assumes his conclusion, so that “his arguments crumble because their foundations are built upon presumptions rather than upon essentially conclusive evidence” (12). THE INCREDIBLE COVER-UP In 1973, Dave MacPherson, then a newspaperman of Kansas City, Missouri, published a vigorous repudiation of pretribulationalism under the title The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin. It was revised and expanded in combination with another booklet by the same author, The Late Great Pre-Trib Rapture, and published in 1975 under the title The Incredible Cover-Up. In MacPherson’swidely distributed “A Letter to Southern Christians,” yet another title by the same author was promoted, The Great Rapture Hoax, “packed with the sort of shocking data that’s been known - and covered up - by Pre-Trib leaders for decades.” This letter further claims that “the Pre-Trib view wasn’t heard of anywhere on earth before the 1800’s,” that it was “originated by a young lassie in Scotland in the spring of 1830,” and that it was “pirated” and spread by John Darby, a Britisherwho “regarded Americans as inferior creatures, worthy of exploitation.” Among other nasty declarations, MacPherson goes on to attack the honesty and morality of C. I. Scofield and promises that his book “will turn you inside out!”
It will immediately be apparent that his book titles are provocative, if not abusive. There has been no “cover-up” or “hoax,” for Pretribauthors and leaders have arrived at their conclusion from Biblical exegesis rather than from any presumed history of the doctrine, and most certainly with no desire to defraud. Furthermore, to attack the morality and integrity of fellow believers just to further an eschatological opinion is a disgrace to the Name and cause of Christ.
What then is MacPherson’sprimary thrust throughout these several paperbacks? In his own words, “the two-stage teaching is an early nineteenth century invention which first saw the light of day in Great Britain and does not reflect the teaching of the New Testament” (1975, 6). “The pre-trib rapture theory ascended from the mists of western Scotland in the spring of 1830” (1975, 138). It had a “hidden background,” a “bizarre origin” (1975, 90, 1010), when a “dangerously sick” young woman by the name of Margaret Macdonald came under the influence of the Scottish revival and had a revelation in which she proclaimed an utterly new view that the Church would escape the coming Tribulation.
Extensive quotations from Robert Norton, at the time of M.M.’s “revelation” a 22 year old medical doctor, indicate that she, her sister and brothers, were members of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving and came under early charismatic influence with the “gifts of prophecy” and “speaking in an unknown tongue.” Under such influence, Margaret Macdonald supposedly revealed that the Church would escape the Tribulation. Some have gone so far as to attribute her declaration to demonic forces. This “utterance” of M.M., MacPherson states repeatedly, is the origin of the pretribulational view that the Church will escape the coming Tribulation. The true facts of the case prove otherwise. The recorded declarations of Margaret Macdonald show clearly that she was not trying to establish the details of the prophetic future, but rather lamenting the weak and sinful condition of the professing church. She cries over “the awful state of the land,” the “distress of nations,” the need for “purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus.” She prays for “an outpouring of the Spirit” upon the Church so that believers will be “counted worthy to stand before the Son of Man.” “Those that are alive in him ... will be caught up to meet him in the air.” But she declares also that the Church will go through “fiery trial” from the “wicked” one, who shall be revealed “with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Then, even more clearly, she declares “the trial of the Church is from Antichrist” - which to say the least is hardly a pretribulationalconcept!
Those interested in reading the entirety of M.M.’s “revelation” will find it recorded in the Appendix of at least two of MacPherson’s books, and also in pages 169-72 of The Rapture by Hal Lindsey.
What then are we to conclude from all this emphasis upon Margaret Macdonald? (1) Its importance has been blown far out of all proportion by those who seek to discredit pretribulationalism. Alexander Reese traces the Pretrib view to the “separatist movements of Edward Irving and J. N. Darby.” George Ladd, quoting Tregelles, traces “the idea of a secret rapture” to an “utterance” in Edward Irving’s church, which “came not from Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God.” J. Barton Payne says that “soon after 1830 a woman, while speaking in tongues, announced the ‘revelation’ that the true church would be caught up (raptured) to heaven before the tribulation” (156). Even Robert Gundry declares that “pretribulationalism arose in the mid-nineteenth century. The likelihood is that Edward Irving was the first to suggest the pretribulation rapture” (185).
However, Gundry in all fairness observes that “the origin of an interpretation of Scripture is not the measure of its correctness.” He says also of Irving that “tongues and prophetic utterances did not begin to appear in his church until late 1831, i.e., after the appearance of pretribulationalism” (187). It remained for MacPhersonto try to demonstrate that beyond question the pretribulationview began with an 1830 “utterance” of Margaret Macdonald.
(2) It is cruel to imply that her utterance was purely emotional, or perhaps Satanic. She was a young and humble Christian endeavoring to call a cold and careless church back to the power and control of the Holy Spirit. The writer thoroughly concurs with Hal Lindsey when he says: “Although I don’t agree with the authenticity of her vision, records show her to be a beautiful sister in the Lord, filled with love and compassion for others” (1983, 173).
(3) There is nothing in the M.M. quotation to indicate that she was a pretribulationalist. She did not distinguish between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ, but rather divided the Rapture itself into two or more parts based on spiritual readiness. This is the Partial Rapture position, very different from pretribulationalism. MacPherson is forced to admit this: “Margaret saw a series of raptures (and she was actually a partial rapturist, with or without the label”) (1975, 85). Indeed, she seemed to believe that the Church had already entered the Tribulation, a possibility strengthened by a statement published by Irving December 1831 in The Morning Watch: “We have, blessed be God, lived to see the commencement of the seventh vial, DURING THE OUTPOURING OF WHICH THE LORD WILL COME!” (Huebner, 23, emphasis his). This is certainly not pretribulationalism!
Readers who desire to pursue in detail the alleged origin of the Pretrib view with Margaret Macdonald and Edward Irving will appreciate the scholarly historical sketch by R. A. Huebner entitled The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Recovered. They will also find of interest The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching by John L. Bray, who finds aPretrib Rapture taught by a Jesuit priest, Lacunza, whose book The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty was first published in Spain in 1812 and translated into English and published by Edward Irving in 1827. This yields a possible Pretrib concept at least eighteen years before Margaret Macdonald. We can only conclude that during this general era many were studying the hitherto neglected truth of our Lord’s return, with some disagreement concerning the actual time of His coming but with many affirming a pretribulationalRapture.
(1) In his book, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition (1979), JohnWalvoord has an extended discussion of the Posttrib’s historical argument which includes five criticisms of MacPherson’s position (150-57). In brief, he does not prove any “cover up” for the Pretrib view is based on biblical exegesis and not upon the presumed history of the doctrine. The allegations of Tregellesare without support, and he was obviously a prejudiced witness. His quotations from Margaret Macdonald and Edward Irving prove that they were not pretribulational. There is no evidence that Darby derived his views from such a source, but rather from the study of the Bible itself and from his conclusion that the Church is the body of Christ. “Under the circumstance,” says Walvoord, “it would seem that common honesty would call for Dave MacPherson to write another book confessing that his entire point of view has no basis in fact as far as MacDonald and Irving are concerned” (155).
Another strong refutation of the Rapture views of Dave MacPherson has recently been published in the theological quarterly, Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June 1990). Entitled “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret MacDonald,” author Thomas D. Ice discusses MacPherson’sbackground, claims and errors, and the response to his claims by a number of Biblical scholars. Important also is the author’s discussion of the “Progress of Dogma” and its relationship to the “Development of Eschatology,” and the emergence of the doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture. All of this is highly recommended reading.
It is MacPherson’scontention that the Pretrib Rapture view is a relatively modern heresy with a plot on the part of its adherents to hide its dubious background. He makes the awful charge that in China “The Pre-Trib Rapture view has caused the deaths of thousands of persons” because missionaries did not warn the people of coming persecution (1975, 103). His final conclusion seems to be that “the pre-trib rapture view is on its last legs - if it ever had a leg to stand on!”
Why such a tirade from a young newspaperman? Is it possible that we are witnessing a personal vendetta?
Dave learned his posttribulationismat an early age from his father and pastor, Norman Spurgeon MacPherson, a fine gentleman but an enthusiastic follower of Alexander Reese, whose arguments he considered unanswerable and whose viewpoints he actively promoted. He even wrote his own book on the subject: Triumph Through Tribulation, dated 1944.
Dave writes openly about the “prophetic narrowmindedness periodically erupting in my father’s California pastorate” and its effect upon his mother’s health. He recounts his own dismissal from a Bible Institute because he discussed prophetic viewpoints “differing in detail from the school’s official position.” Two weeks before the end of the semester, he says, “I was dismissed from the premises.... My dismissal was possibly the last straw. A few days later my mother died” (1973, 15).
While all of this is most regrettable, one must not respond to personal sorrow by breaking fellowship with fellow believers over prophetic detail, nor by attacking them and impugning their integrity because they support an alternate viewpoint.