Part XIII.4

AT THE LAST TRUMP

(1)    For his fifth supporting pillar, Rosenthal turns to 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, calling it the clearest text in all the Word of God for determining the timing of the Rapture. The four words, “at the last trump,” reveal in the clearest possible way the “precise occasion” when the Rapture of the Church will occur (189). He points out correctly that both Midtribs and Posttribs identify their Rapture position with the “last trump.” But pursuing his withering attack on pretribulationism, he declares: “Pretribulation rapturists do not make strong appeals to Paul’s statement that the Rapture will occur before the last trump to support their position…. If they mention 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 in a Rapture discussion, it is brief and without determinative significance” (189-90). This is a highly prejudiced and erroneous statement.

While he does have a good discussion of the use of a trumpet in the ritual of Judaism, he is content to make an emphatic statement which he supports by italics but not by evidence: “The last trump will be nothing more, nothing less and nothing different than the final, climactic, eschatological outpouring of the wrath of God” (193). In his thinking, this makes the “last trump” the equivalent of the entire Day of the Lord. He declares that the “rapture would occur at the last trump” (193), but also that “Christ will literally return to assume His kingdom at the seventh trumpet” (146). This makes the “last trump” a period of twenty-one months, rather than a point of time to signal the Rapture. This confusing position is obviously unacceptable. Rosenthal then returns to his main thesis, that the Rapture must occur at the beginning of the seventh seal and immediately before the beginning of God’s wrath (194).

There is a more simple and acceptable solution to the problem. The “last trump” is not an Old Testament trumpet of Jewish ritual, nor the same as the seventh trumpet of Tribulation judgment. It is a unique trumpet which sounds for the Church at the Rapture, which is at the last trump (and not before the last trump, as Rosenthal claims). There are evidently two trumpet blasts, one for the dead and another for the living. Hence, the living are raptured at the second, which is the “last trump.” While this view may be too simple for some tastes, it emphasizes that the “trump” is a joyful signal and not a dreaded period of time. It records that the dead in Christ and living believers will be raised in quick succession, to enjoy reunion and recognition together in the presence of Christ. Its purpose is not to reveal the time of the Rapture, a subject which our Lord has chosen not to reveal. It does give assurance that those who have died in the Lord have not missed the Rapture; if anything, they enjoy a slight time advantage because they are caught up just before the living (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). THE APOSTASY AND THE MAN OF SIN

(2)The last of these supporting evidences for Rosenthal’s prophetic program is found in chapter 15 of the book, The Apostasy and the Man of Sin. This reviewer found it to be a strange co-mingling of truth, speculation, and falsehood. Equally troubling is Rosenthal’s stepped-up attack against pretribulationism, assigning it “impossible-to-resolve problems” when it is examined in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17. It is claimed that these leave “pretribulation rapturism mortally wounded” (196, 210), and in addition he sounds his usual denial of imminency. In brief, that which is true would include the foreshadowing of Antichrist by the blasphemy and hatred of Israel under the Syrian leader, Antiochus Epiphanes. The speculative is his view of the Antichrist, who “once lived and ruled over a nation, then died, and will be raised to rule over the eighth empire” (209). Also “doubtful” is his claim that all his evidence is “clear and compelling.”

Regrettably, that which is false is more plentiful. It involves his declaration that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “The apostasy to which Paul referred … will involve Israel, not the church” (206). While the normative view of this passage is that the “apostasy” is a widespread departure from true Biblical faith in the end-time, in the light of 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Rosenthal insists that it is “a specific, definitive, identifiable event” (199), “when many of the Jews will totally abandon the God of their fathers in the same way they did in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes” (201). This opinion he primarily supports, not from Scripture, but from various quotations from the Apocrypha.

Moreover, Rosenthal declares, the apostasy has a “very specific and limited meaning,” a “total abandonment of Jehovah for a heathen god” (201). Hence, he concludes that the falling away of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is an identifiable event at a specific point of time, limited to Israel, and associated with Antichrist and his defiling the temple in Jerusalem at the mid-point of the Tribulation. The main thrust of all of this is that the Day of the Lord cannot come until the second half of the Tribulation, “and the Rapture, which occurs at the very outset of the Day of the Lord, cannot possibly be pretribulational.” He concludes that this leaves pretribulation rapturism “mortally wounded” (210).

These are highly questionable conclusions. Paul was not discussing a point of time or a final apostasy on the part of Israel, but a spiritual condition among professing Christians. In his previous epistle, he had taught the Thessalonians that the dead in Christ had not missed the Rapture and that living believers would not endure the wrath of the Day of the Lord. Now in his second epistle, he was explaining that they had not entered the Day of the Lord for several reasons. The Restrainer had not yet been removed, the final apostasy had not yet taken place, and the Antichrist with his world dominion had not yet emerged. All of this is a direct refutation of posttribulational thinking, including the view of Marvin Rosenthal. In addition, almost every point of the summary chart on page 197 is open to question. A comparison with the chart on page 147 reveals that Rosenthal contradicts himself on the extent of God’s wrath and the time of the Second Coming of Christ. While his sincerity may be beyond question, many of his definitions appear to be homemade and supporting evidence is completed inadequate. It is part of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit to reveal to believers “things to come” (John 16:13), which normally produces within the Church of Christ a certain agreement, a godly consensus even in the interpretation of prophetic truth. While believers do not always agree on the details, it is rare when truth must stand absolutely alone.

It is here contended that Rosenthal is in serious error when he attempts to set the time of the Rapture three-fourths of the way through the seven years of judgment and wrath, some 1,890 days after Antichrist makes his unparalleled covenant with Israel. Among evangelical Christians from all major Rapture perspectives, Rosenthal walks an isolated path when he asserts that these six notable signs unite in setting the timing of the Rapture. Believers are to wait and watch for Christ’s coming and live accordingly, for it is their blessed and purifying hope, evidently next on the prophetic program of God. But the Lord’s people should not be confused by vehement argumentation designed to set the day of His appearing, adding yet a fifth and doubtful position to an issue which has already been subjected to more than its share of debate. THE PRE-WRATH RAPTURE This closing section of the book consists of five chapters, designed to give final justification for Rosenthal’s unique position and a conclusive knockout blow against pretribulationism. In the judgment of this reviewer, who has followed the literature of the Rapture-Tribulation debate closely for nearly forty years, these final arguments as well as many of the former, range somewhere between “curious” and “radical.” But those who consider them must exercise considerable caution, for they can be rightly evaluated only by those well established in Biblical theology and well read in the area of eschatology. As always, the Biblical rule is to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NASV), with as much prayer and with strong dependence upon the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12).

Chapter 16 discusses the primary Greek words used for the return of Christ, in parallel with much that has already been written on this subject in the Rapture literature. Rosenthal argues that there is only one “coming,” with the important feature that it includes not only the Rapture but also a “continuous presence” during which Christ judges the wicked in the Day of the Lord. It also includes His final return in glory (218). To quote the author: “The Lord’s coming … is a comprehensive whole. There is only one Second Coming. It includes the Rapture of the church, the outpouring of God’s wrath during the Day of the Lord, and Christ’s physical return in glory” (221-22, italics his). Furthermore, Rosenthal holds that the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints” (1 Thessalonians 3:13) does not speak of Christ returning to earth with the “dead in Christ” or with raptured living saints, but rather He will come with His “holy ones,” namely angelic beings. All this introduces another major problem.

Rosenthal does not explain the destiny of the Church at the Rapture. What happens to all the raptured saints, both dead and living, in the 630 day interval when Christ has a “continuous presence” and is pouring out His wrath upon the wicked? The position of this book demands that the Church is not on earth during the time of outpoured wrath. But they are not raptured to heaven, for to Rosenthal that would imply “two comings.” Will the Church triumphant which meets Christ “in the clouds” continue to float about in those clouds for one-fourth of a seven year period while Christ has a “continuous presence” and performs his work of judgment on earth below? It is most significant that Rosenthal rejects the idea of raptured saints going to “the Father’s house.” Indeed, except for one mention of John 14:1-3 in a quotation of John Sproule, who calls it one of several “debatable Scriptures” (55), Rosenthal does not refer to this important passage at all, for it cannot be brought into harmony with his prophetic scheme. What happens to the Church during Rosenthal’s twenty-one month “day of the Lord”? He gives no answer to his. He simply affirms that there will be one “coming,” which embraces everything from the Rapture through the last quarter of the seventieth week, right up to the final manifestation of the King. A further questionable view concerns the “sign” of Christ’s coming, requested by the disciples in Matthew 24:3. He writes that this sign will be “the manifestation of the glory of God” at His coming, when the “the natural light will be turned off and the supernatural light (God’s glory) will be turned on” (221). Most observers would locate this event within the Eternal State following the Millennial Kingdom and the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 21:23-25), and not with the opening of the sixth seal. Yet Rosenthal argues that this “sign” is sufficiently clear that “the doctrine of imminency is destroyed by the question posed by the disciples” (224).

Chapter 17 introduces the often-debated text of Revelation 3:10 and the disputed phrase, “kept from the hour.” Rosenthal states that the dispute among commentators stems from the fact that they “have no generally understood that there are three sections to the seventieth week - the beginning birth pangs, the Great Tribulation, and the Day of the Lord” (233). Or, to put it more bluntly, they have not read his book! This reviewer is disposed to agree with Rosenthal that “each scholar is inclined to interpret this phrase to substantiate his view of the Rapture,” as he himself does. Posttribs understand “kept from the hour” as divine protection through the Tribulation, while Pretribs interpret it as exemption from the Tribulation. The latter builds a stronger case, for the verse does not promise protection within the hour but exemption from the hour itself. This point has been well defended in pretribulational literature.

Surprisingly, Rosenthal takes an entirely different approach to the issue, declaring that this watershed Scripture in the Rapture debate “in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the Rapture.” For the promise of Revelation 3:10 “refers to protection from the Great Tribulation, which occurs before the Rapture and the Day of the Lord begins” (234). Since he believes the “hour of temptation” begins in the middle of the seventieth week, some who remain steadfast in the face of adversity “will be kept from that hour … by physical removal” (a partial Rapture?), while “others will be kept ‘through the hour of temptation’ by direct, divine protection” (239). So Rosenthal removes this promise from application to the Rapture, applies both viewpoints to the prior Great Tribulation, and further confuses his readers by declaring that this promise to the church of Philadelphia does not belong to all Christendom. For “it is only the church of Philadelphia which is promised exemption from ‘the hour of temptation’” (237), other views interpreting this Scripture “nonliterally.” Confusing! At best, he is suggesting that the Scripture promises: I will keep you in one way or another from the last 25 percent of the hour! In chapter 18 Rosenthal asks the question, “Are Pretribulation Rapture Arguments Really Unanswerable?” While admitting that “pretribulationism has more than its share of notables of the faith,” he adds that “church history is replete with men of distinction who had blind spots in their theology” (243). Then he gives eleven pretribulational arguments and his rebuttal of each, taking what comfort for his own position he can from each issue.

Space does not permit a further discussion of these arguments, nor a rebuttal of Rosenthal’s rebuttals. Suffice it to say that some of the arguments are not entirely representative of normal pretribulational positions, and many valid pretribulational arguments are not introduced at all. Both Walvoord and Pentecost present a substantial summary of pretribulational arguments, and these issues have been abundantly discussed in the literature on the Rapture debate. Moreover, Rosenthal’s rebuttals are largely a restatement of positions earlier defended.

However, two hitherto untreated issues are introduced. (1) The twenty-four elders of Revelation 4:1-11 are commonly believed to represent the Church in glory before the Tribulation, a position strongly defended by Pentecost and also by the present writer (Kept from the Hour, pp. 198-208). Rosenthal argues that the elders are not the Church at all, but rather “they represented the redeemed of the Old Testament economy,” even “redeemed Israel” (252, 254). But Israel is clearly identified in the Revelation and except for 14:1-5 is always seen on earth and not as a unique group in heaven. However the Church, referred to 19 times in the first three chapters, does not appear on earth at all in chapters 4-18, the critical Tribulation passage. It is more than a coincidence that a new group appears in heaven and is presented in great detail before the opening of the first seal. All the evidence identifies these 24 elders as representing the raptured Church. For they have been redeemed out of many nations and clothed in the righteousness of Christ. They have been crowned at the Judgment Seat of Christ and are now seated in the presence of the Lamb. Everything said in the song of the elders is true of the Church. All the details argue that at this point it is the Church in view rather than Israel.

(2)Also discussed in this chapter is Rosenthal’s view of the Restrainer (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8). The normal pretribulational position is that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, removed before the open revelation of the Antichrist, and taking the Church with Him back to the Father’s house (John 14:2-3; John 14:16). The normal posttribulational position is that the influence which restrains human wickedness is some aspect of human law or government. Rosenthal rejects both of these, declaring that he who restrains until “he be taken out of the way” is actually the angel Michael, who “steps aside” and no longer hinders Antichrist in his persecution of Israel (256-57). This appears to be the very reverse of the teaching of Scripture that Michael will defend and deliver Israel in the coming unprecedented “time of trouble” (Daniel 12:1; cf. Revelation 12:7-16). He will not abandon them in the midst of Israel’s worst hour, but will save them from it (Jeremiah 30:7). In chapter 19 Rosenthal asks, “Why This View Now?” He defends the thesis that his view is neither new or novel, but only now systematized. His primary defense is from Daniel 12:4, which teaches that Daniel’s book would be sealed “to the time of the end,” when the knowledge of the book would be greatly increased. He draws the conclusion that it should not be surprising that “a new, more detailed systematic approach to the timing of the Rapture and the events of the seventieth week would be forthcoming” (278).

While it is self-evident that much of Daniel through history has been “sealed,” with far greater understanding of his prophecies being achieved as “the time of the end” approaches, this writer takes exception to Rosenthal’s idea that this sealing means that “God was guaranteeing its accuracy” (269). Accuracy, not for one, but for every book in the canon of Scripture is guaranteed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) and does not require additional sealing. Nor can Daniel 12:4 be used to justify every new and novel prophetic theory to come along. Nor does it justify Rosenthal’s particular view of the timing of the Rapture, for the Rapture is a New Testament “mystery” (1 Corinthians 15:51), not found at all in the Old Testament, even in so wonderful a book as Daniel. It is self-serving for Rosenthal to claim support for his time of the Rapture theories from Daniel 12:4.

Perhaps there should be mentioned at this point a problem which runs throughout this book. Continually Rosenthal quotes Scripture, which is commendable, but almost invariably in the midst of the quotation he interjects his own definition or explanation, sometimes in brackets and sometimes in parenthesis. The impression is given that the reader cannot understand each Scripture unless he is helped along or prodded by Rosenthal. While separate commentary is legitimate, each Scripture is inspired by the Spirit with the potential of being taught by the Spirit, even the “deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-12). This is even true of prophetic material, for “when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth … and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13).

Rosenthal’s last chapter incorporates a final summary of his various positions, and also a final abrasive attack against pretribulationism and some of its leaders. The chapter sets forth the “Prewrath Rapture” view as a “catalyst for holy living,” without recognizing that much of that catalyst is lost if forty-two months of “sorrows” and another twenty-one months of battle and martyrdom from the Beast must come first.

It is reasonable to inquire about the effect of these new prophetic views upon their author as he prepared them in written form for the Christian public. For this, it is essential to return to the opening chapter, perhaps the most dismal portion of the entire book. Rosenthal testifies that the writing of his book caused him “the most difficult, tension-filled, heart-wrenching two and a half years” of his life (17). He speaks of sleepless nights and excruciating tension, of strained and somber board meetings, of agony of soul and the trauma of lost friendships and a lost job.

While readers respond to this agony with deep regret, it is hardly the mark of being taught and led by the Spirit. One would think that a new clarification of a divisive problem of eschatology which has troubled the Church for more than a hundred years, with the Spirit finally fulfilling the promise of Daniel 12:4 and shedding new light and understanding, would be accompanied by the joy of illumination and the peace of divine guidance. Such was evidently not the case. Our brother should be commended for his diligence and thanked with appreciation for every insight which bears the clear stamp of truth. He should be the subject of prayer as he searches for further light on the timing of the Rapture. But the considered conclusion of this reviewer is that Rosenthal’s published views are a distortion of prophetic truth, sometimes curious, sometimes strange, and frequently false. But taken as a whole they are unworthy replacement for the blessed hope of Christ’s imminent return for the Church in Rapture experience. NOT A BASIS FOR FELLOWSHIP To conclude this review of major literature relative to the pre- or posttribulational Rapture of the Church, it should be noted that many of the authors close their arguments with a plea for greater tolerance and warmer fellowship between those who differ so strongly on various points of eschatology. This has been our plea from the very first edition of Kept from the Hour, that disagreement as to the time and manner of the Rapture “should not be permitted to deter evangelical unity on the reality of that blessed hope” (272).

It is encouraging to hear others sounding a similar conciliatory note. John Walvoord speaks of the return of the Lord for His Church as “a precious aspect of faith and expectation,” and refers to those who have not always agreed as to the chronology of that hope as “learned and devout saints” (1979, 276). In an earlier volume he declares: “Worth scholars may be found on both sides of this question” (1976, 8).

Barton Payne confirms that “writers of all schools increasingly insist that convictions be expressed with courtesy.” One’s views should be defended in “a spirit of Christian charity,” for the doctrine in question “is not of sufficient importance to cause evangelical cleavage” (1962, 169).

Robert Gundry writes concerning his presentation: “It should (but cannot) go without saying that in matters of disagreement the appearance here of the names of writers on the topics at hand ought not be taken as personal attack, but only as means of documentation.” He desires his pages to be written in a manner characterized by “the wisdom from above … first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (10-11). Such an attitude is most commendable.

George Ladd closes The Blessed Hope by declaring: “Neither pretribulationism nor posttribulationism should be made a ground of fellowship, a test of orthodoxy, or a necessary element in Christian doctrine” (167). Douglas Moo concludes: “I cannot, indeed must not, allow this conviction to represent any king of barrier to full relationships with others who hold differing convictions …” (211). Even William Kimball hopes that “our essential unity and fellowship in Christ should never be severed or undermined because of our differences on prophetic points” (181). Such mutual respect must be continually encouraged.

While the Rapture debate is far more that a dispute over the time of the Rapture and its relationship to the coming Tribulation, and while widely divergent views cannot be equally true or accurate, the central truth must be reaffirmed that since Christ is our Saviour and Lord, His possible soon coming for the Church is our mutual expectation and our hope! Our love for Him and anticipation of His return is far more important than a disputed point of doctrine or a favored rule of hermeneutics.

All of those engaged in the Rapture debate are Bible-believing, Premillennial brothers in Christ, and whenever He comes, we are going up together to dwell together with Christ for eternity. Meanwhile, as Paul Feinberg has so aptly put it, may our disagreements “serve as a greater impetus to study and clarity,” and “may our differences never becloud the joy and expectation of seeing our Lord at His visible and personal return” (86).

Amen, and “even so, come Lord Jesus”!

87-88 [1] Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 46.

[2] George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Colossians, 1956), p. 122.

[3] J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Colossians, 1962), p. 143.

[4] Arthur Katterjohn, The Tribulation People (Carol Stream, Ill.: Creation House, 1976), p. 98.

[5] William R. Kimball, The Rapture: A Question of Timing (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 70.

[6] Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, n.d.), p. 226.

[7] Renald E. Showers, Th.D., formerly associated with Marvin Rosenthal at Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, has written an 88 page “critique and objection” to The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Academic, detailed, and highly Scriptural, at this point he details six pages of Scripture and argument to demonstrate that “the first four seals of Revelation 6:1-8 involve a great outpouring of divine wrath.”

[8] Kept from the Hour, pp. 70-91.

[9] H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: Macmillan Colossians, 1950), p. 178.

________________________________