Introduction

With the “Left Behind” movie in theaters, there has been a lot of blog traffic concerning the Rapture. Unfortunately, most, if not all, has been against the teaching. What has also been unfortunate is that the majority of posts present very basic arguments. It should have been quite easy for any of us who hold to the Rapture to quite able defend our view. This has not occurred.

So, how can we defend our view? What are the arguments for our view and against other views? Recently, I put together a teaching for the class I am teaching on the Book of Revelation. Now, the rapture does not figure prominently in the book. But, it is part of eschatology and we should have understanding of it. Also, the target of our defense is towards other Christians. And, as always:

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,” (Ephesians 4:15, ESV)

These series of posts will go into the defense. I want to acknowledge the fine work of the theologians who contribute their work to Pre-Trib Research Center. I pulled some good material from the site, particularly the works of Dr. John Feinberg and Dr. Thomas Ice.

Defense Outline

Usually, when defending a view in scripture, we want to look at both external and internal evidence for the view. The internal evidence comes from Scripture itself. As such, we will start our defense by looking at various passages to show the following:

• The orthodox view of the immanency of Jesus Christ’s coming is fully supported by a Jesus’ coming in the rapture vs. His second coming prior to the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom.
• The rapture passages and the second coming (parousia) passages describe two separate events.
• God promises that we, as Christians, will not undergo His wrath.
• The inhabitants of the Millennial Kingdom do not have glorified bodies.
• The timing of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and the Bema Seat Judgment supports a pre-tribulation rapture view.

Again, many thanks to Dr. John Feinberg and his article on what we need to show in order to defend our view: Arguing for the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How?

For the external evidence we will do a brief survey of the historical witness to the view of the rapture. This is important because one of the common charges leveled against the view of the rapture is that it is a “new doctrine” commonly attributed to John Nelson Darby in 1830 and popularized with the publishing of the Scofield Bible in 1909. We will see that there is some good evidence that some form of the pre-tribulational rapture view has existed since the writing of the NT (from around 50 to 90 AD — if I am successful then the rapture doctrine is actually taught by the apostle Paul as early as 50 AD (1 Thessalonians) and hinted at by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, the earliest also being around 50 AD (although spoken by Jesus during his first advent before 33 AD)).

Immanency

Immanency is the condition of something that could happen at any time or is about to happen. When applied to the second coming, the term means that Christ could return at any time. “Imminence” as related to our Lord’s return not only indicates uncertainty as to time, but also possibility of nearness.

“Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.” (Mark 13:33, ESV)

“Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand;” (Philippians 4:5, ESV)

“You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (James 5:8, ESV)

See also: Matt. 24:42-48; Luke 12:35-40; Rom. 13:12; 1Cor. 7:29; Php. 3:20-21; 1Th. 1:10; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 9:28; 1Pe. 4:7; 1Jn. 2:18; Jude 1:21; Rev. 3:11; Rev. 22:7,10,20.

The question, then, is whether Jesus’ second coming before the Millennial Kingdom is immanent. I would argue that it is certainly not.  The reason is that preceding Jesus’ return is the Great Tribulation.  This event, much prophesied about in both the Old Testament and New Testament, is stated to be a duration of 7 years (Dan. 9:24-27).  Once the Great Tribulation starts, a person alive at that time can look forward to Jesus coming seven years from the start.  His coming, then, after the Great Tribulation is hardly imminent.  This has to then point to some other coming of Jesus that is imminent. The (pretribulational) rapture solves this problem. Besides, without the rapture, it is not Jesus’ second coming that is imminent but the Great Tribulation.  Scripture does not teach the immanency of the Great Tribulation.

In my second post I will go over the rapture passages versus the second coming passages in scripture.  We will contrast them and show that they are describing two separate and different events.