Justified True Belief

Mapping the Landscape of Good Reasons for the Truth of Christianity

Christian Evidences

Evidence & Arguments for Christian Theism

Divinity of Christ

Biblical Evidence for High-Christology: Jesus is God

TBD

Old Testament Criticism

Evidence for the Reliability of the OT Bible

Common Objections

Objection Analyses to Christian Theism

World Religions

Critical Analyses of Non-Christian Religions

Philosophical Theology

Analytical Analyses of Christian Systematic Theology

Bibliology

The Doctrine of Scripture

Theology Proper

The Divine Nature and Properties of God

Creation

The Doctrine of Creation

TBD

Anthropology

The Doctrine of Humanity

TBD

Christology

The Doctrine of Christ

TBD

Soteriology

The Doctrine of Salvation

TBD

Ecclesiology

The Doctrine of the Church

TBD

Eschatology

The Doctrine of Last Things

Is There a Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

(P1) Jesus taught one coming, visible to the whole world, after the tribulation. + A pre-tribulation rapture is a coming of Christ before the tribulation (the final stretch of intense trouble on earth, usually reckoned at seven years) in which he quietly takes the church out of the world and returns in public only later. Everything the apostles wrote about that return builds on what Jesus said one afternoon on the Mount of Olives, his long answer in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 that is known as the Olivet Discourse, so that is where the question has to start. (1) The disciples asked about one coming and Jesus described one. - The question was plain: "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3). The word behind "coming" is parousia, the ordinary Greek word for the arrival of an important person, the state visit of a king to one of his cities. It became the New Testament's usual word for the return of Christ, and Jesus, Paul, James, Peter and John all use it. - Jesus answers with a long account of what lies ahead: false christs, wars, persecution, the desolating sacrilege (a defiling of God's holy place that Daniel had foretold), a great tribulation, and then the arrival of the Son of Man. There is one arrival in the whole discourse. He never mentions an earlier, quieter one. - Think of a friend describing her wedding day from the first guest to the last dance. If she never mentions the bride arriving twice, it is because the bride arrived once. (2) The coming Jesus describes is after the tribulation, not before it. - His own words fix the order: "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." (Mark 13:24-27) - So the gathering of his people comes after the tribulation, and the Son of Man does it in full view. That is the opposite order from a rescue before the trouble begins. - Jesus also says the tribulation is shortened "for the sake of the elect, whom he chose" (Mark 13:20). The elect are simply God's chosen people, the New Testament's ordinary name for believers. You do not send a school home early for the sake of children who left at breakfast. The elect are in those days, which is why the days are cut short. - His parable of the weeds says the same thing in a field. The owner refuses to pull the weeds early: "Let both grow together until the harvest" (Matthew 13:30), and the harvest "is the end of the age" (Matthew 13:39), when the angels gather the wicked and the righteous shine in the kingdom (Matthew 13:41-43). One harvest, at the end, with the wheat left standing until then. - One thing should be said before moving on. Some scholars think "the Son of Man coming in clouds" in Mark 13:26 is borrowed from Daniel 7, where the son of man comes up to God's throne to be vindicated, and they apply the verse to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 rather than to Christ's return. If they are right, the pre-tribulation view loses far more than the case for one coming does (D13). (3) The coming is visible to everyone on earth. - Jesus warns against exactly the idea of a hidden arrival: "So, if they say to you, Look, he is in the wilderness, do not go out. If they say, Look, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:26-27) - John says the same from Patmos, the island where he received Revelation: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" (Revelation 1:7). And the angels at the ascension promised the disciples that Jesus "will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11), which was in a cloud, in daylight, with people watching. - Nobody has to be told that lightning struck. A coming like lightning cannot be a coming that the world misses. (4) The rest of the New Testament waits for that one public appearing. - Paul calls the Christian hope "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). The word is epiphaneia, an appearing or showing forth, the word Greeks used when a god or an emperor showed himself in public. Christ "will appear a second time" (Hebrews 9:28): a second time, not a second and then a third. "When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4) - Every time the New Testament names the hope, it is an appearing. It is never a disappearing. Therefore, on the teaching of Jesus himself, Christ's people are gathered at one visible coming that follows the tribulation.

(P2) Paul's teaching on the Lord's coming is the teaching of Jesus. + The doctrine of a separate rapture rests chiefly on one passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, so the whole question is whether Paul describes there the coming Jesus described or a different one. (1) Paul says he is passing on a word from the Lord. - Here is the passage: "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) - "By a word from the Lord" is Paul telling his readers that this is Jesus' teaching, the same way he tells the Corinthians that the Lord's Supper is what he "received from the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:23). He is reporting, not inventing. - The occasion explains the emphasis. Paul had spent only a short time in Thessalonica, three Sabbaths in the synagogue and perhaps a few weeks more, before he was run out of town (Acts 17:1-10). Some believers had since died, and the church grieved as though the dead would miss the great day. So Paul builds his answer on what they already believed, that Jesus died and rose (1 Thessalonians 4:14), and his stress falls on order: the dead will rise first. Picture a family worried that the grandparents will miss the reunion, and being told that the grandparents will be first through the door. (2) Every element of Paul's picture is already in Jesus' picture. - Set the two side by side. Jesus: the Son of Man "coming on the clouds of heaven", "a loud trumpet call", "his angels", and "they will gather his elect from the four winds" (Matthew 24:30-31). Paul: the Lord descending "in the clouds", "the trumpet of God", "the voice of an archangel", and believers "caught up together" to him. - Clouds, trumpet, angels, gathering. Nothing in Paul's scene is missing from Jesus' scene, and nothing in Jesus' scene is contradicted by Paul's. - When two witnesses describe an accident with the same car, the same corner and the same time of day, the jury concludes they saw one accident. It does not conclude there were two. (3) Paul's second letter uses Jesus' own word for the gathering. - Paul returns to the subject: "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him" (2 Thessalonians 2:1). The Greek noun behind "being gathered together" is episunagoge, the assembling of a crowd into one place. Its verb, episunago, is the very word Jesus used when he said the Son of Man will "gather his elect from the four winds" (Mark 13:27). - Paul then dates that coming: "that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and the Lord will destroy that man "by the appearance of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). The man of lawlessness is Paul's name for the final great rebel against God, the figure most readers call the antichrist. - So the parousia Paul is discussing falls after the man of lawlessness. That is exactly where Jesus put the desolating sacrilege (Mark 13:14), the defiling of the holy place that opens the great tribulation. Paul's rebel and Jesus' sacrilege are the same moment in the same story, and both writers put the coming after it. - If the programme says the keynote is after lunch, nobody books a second keynote at breakfast. (4) Paul borrows Jesus' thief in the night for the same day. - A few lines after describing the trumpet and the clouds, Paul adds, "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:2) Jesus had said, "if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake" (Matthew 24:43). - For Paul "the day of the Lord" is the day Christ returns: "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:8), the day "when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints" (2 Thessalonians 1:10). And it is worth remembering that chapter divisions were added to the Bible centuries later. What we call chapters 4 and 5 of the first letter was one continuous page, so the coming of 4:16 and the day of 5:2 are one day. Therefore, what Paul teaches about the coming of the Lord is what Jesus taught, and the gathering of 1 Thessalonians 4 is the gathering of Mark 13.

(P3) At that coming all who belong to Christ are raised. + Paul places the resurrection of believers at the coming he describes, and he knows one such resurrection, not two of them seven years apart. (1) The coming of 1 Thessalonians 4 is the resurrection of the dead. - "And the dead in Christ will rise first." (1 Thessalonians 4:16) Whatever else this scene is, it is graves opening. That is not a quiet evacuation of the living. It is the event every Christian funeral looks forward to. - Paul describes the same moment to Corinth with the same trumpet: "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:52) Same order too: the dead raised, then the living changed. - Two letters, one alarm clock. When the trumpet of God sounds, the dead rise. (2) Paul knows one order for those who belong to Christ. - "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:23) "Firstfruits" is the first sheaf of a harvest, the one that promises the rest is coming. Two orders, one line between them: Christ first, then all his people, at his coming. - A pre-tribulation rapture needs that second order cut in two: the church raised before the tribulation, and the believers who die during it raised after it, seven years apart, with both events called "his coming". Paul draws no such line, and no other text draws it for him. - Think of a roll call. Paul reads two names off the list, Christ and then everyone who belongs to him. A pre-tribulation rapture needs a third line that the list does not have. - For the people who rise at that trumpet, "Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:54). A careful reader of the surrounding verses may wonder whether death is finished for the whole creation in that same hour, or only after the thousand-year reign of Revelation 20. That is the millennium question, and Christians answer it differently. Nothing in P1 through P4 depends on the answer (C1), because every answer to it has one resurrection of Christ's people, not two. (3) Paul calls the trumpet of that day the last one. - The dead are raised "at the last trumpet" (1 Corinthians 15:52), and Jesus said his angels gather the elect "with a loud trumpet call" after the tribulation (Matthew 24:31). The natural reading is one trumpet. The other reading needs two trumpets seven years apart, each raising or gathering God's people, with the earlier of them named "last". - A fair reader will ask whether "last" means the last of the seven trumpets in Revelation. It does not, and pre-tribulation writers are right to say so, since Revelation was written decades after this letter. Paul was drawing on the prophets instead. For them one great trumpet calls God's scattered people home: "in that day a great trumpet will be blown", and the lost and the driven out "will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain at Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27:13). That is the trumpet Jesus named for the gathering of the elect. - Even so, "last" is Paul's own word for it, and it is a poor word for the first of two. When the last bell of the school day rings, no child expects another bell an hour later. If one rang, the first was not the last. (4) Jesus put the resurrection on "the last day". - Four times in one chapter Jesus promises the believer, "I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40; also 6:39, 44, 54). Martha knew the teaching: "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (John 11:24) - And the resurrection of life is a single thing in his mouth: "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28-29) One voice, one resurrection of life. Whether the resurrection of judgment shares its hour or follows a thousand years later is the same open millennium question (C1). - "The last day" is a poor name for a day that falls seven years before the Lord's return. A book's last chapter is the one after which there are no more chapters. (5) Heaven keeps Christ until the day everything is set right. - Peter says of Jesus that "heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago" (Acts 3:21). He stays until the restoration. He is not sent out early for a preliminary visit. - The same day transforms the living: "we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body" (Philippians 3:20-21). Creation itself waits for that moment, "the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23). Therefore, the coming at which believers are raised is the one resurrection of Christ's people, and it cannot be the opening act of a seven-year drama with a second resurrection of his people at its close.

(P4) At that coming believers rise to welcome the Lord as he arrives. + To a modern ear, being "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" sounds like leaving. To Paul's first readers it meant the opposite. (1) "To meet" was the word for going out to welcome someone home. - The Greek word is apantesis, and in the Greek-speaking world it was the ordinary term for a formal welcome. When a governor or a king approached a city, its leading citizens went out through the gates to meet him and escort him back in with honour. - The New Testament uses the word twice more, and both times the direction of travel is spelled out. In the parable of the ten virgins the cry goes up, "Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him." (Matthew 25:6), and the wise ones then "went in with him to the marriage feast" (Matthew 25:10). When Paul approached Rome, the Christians there "came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us", and the next verse says, "And when we came into Rome" (Acts 28:15-16). The welcoming party turned around and went back in with the man they had met. - Think of the arrivals hall at an airport. You go to meet your daughter at arrivals so you can bring her home. You do not meet her there so that the two of you can get on another plane. (2) "Caught up" reverses a word the pagans used for death. - The verb is harpazo, to snatch or seize suddenly. Its Latin translation is rapio, one form of which, raptum, gives English the word "rapture". On Greek and Latin gravestones this was a word for dying: Fate snatched the loved one away. - Paul turns it around. Believers are not snatched away by death into the grave. They are snatched up into life, the dead and the living together, to greet the Lord who has come to destroy death. The word says how suddenly it happens. It carries no idea of being taken out of the world for a while. (3) The clouds are the sign of God's presence, not an altitude. - Daniel's vision is the source: "with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7:13), the Ancient of Days being Daniel's name for God on his throne. Before that, the pillar of cloud led Israel (Exodus 13:21), and the cloud of glory filled the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) and Solomon's temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). A cloud took Jesus from the disciples' sight (Acts 1:9), and he will come "in the same way" (Acts 1:11). - So "in the clouds" tells you whose glory Christ arrives in. It does not tell you how many feet above the ground the meeting happens. He is not an aeroplane pausing at ten thousand feet to take on passengers before climbing again. (4) What follows the meeting is a throne, not a departure. - In the same discourse as the virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, Jesus says what happens next: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations" (Matthew 25:31-32). Arrival, welcome, throne, judgment. - Paul dates both halves of that day together. God will "grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" (2 Thessalonians 1:7), and the wicked will be punished "when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints" (2 Thessalonians 1:10). Relief and judgment, one day. - Paul ends the scene, "and so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17): with him wherever he is, and where he is, on that day, is the world he has come back to claim. Therefore, Paul's readers heard 1 Thessalonians 4 as a homecoming procession: the King arrives, his people go out to bring him in, and he sits down to reign.

(C1) Therefore, Christ returns once, visibly, with no earlier coming to remove the church. + Christ comes back once, in full view of the world, and nothing in the New Testament describes an earlier, quieter visit to collect the church. The argument is deductive, which means the premises work like links in a chain: if each link holds, the conclusion cannot slip out. The standard for a link is the ordinary one, that each premise is more plausible than its denial, and each of the four is a reading of the plainest texts on the subject. (1) A pre-tribulation rapture needs five things the texts refuse. - It needs a coming that is earlier than the visible one. Jesus placed the gathering of the elect after the tribulation (P1). - It needs a coming that is secret. Jesus said his coming would be like lightning, and he warned against believing in a hidden one (P1). - It needs the coming of 1 Thessalonians 4 to be a different event from the coming of Mark 13. Paul gives it the same clouds, trumpet, angels and gathering, calls it a word from the Lord, and in the next letter dates it after the man of lawlessness (P2). - It needs the resurrection of believers to be a first instalment, with a second resurrection of Christ's people seven years later. Paul knows one order for those who belong to Christ, at the last trumpet, and Jesus put it on the last day (P3). - And it needs "to meet the Lord in the air" to mean departure, when the word means welcome (P4). (2) What follows is what the church has always confessed. - The creeds say it in one line: he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. One coming, in glory, for judgment. That is exactly what C1 says, no more and no less. - Christians who differ sharply about the thousand years of Revelation 20 agree on this. Posttribulational premillennialists expect Christ to return after the tribulation and then reign on earth for a thousand years. Amillennialists read the thousand years as the present age of the church. Postmillennialists expect a golden age of the gospel before he returns. The Catholic and Orthodox churches confess it too. All of them, whatever else they dispute, hold to one return. The two-stage coming is the view of one tradition within evangelical Protestantism, and it appeared in the late 1820s and 1830s (D7). (3) What stays open. - The millennium stays open. Whether Christ's thousand-year reign in Revelation 20 is future and earthly, or the present age, or a golden age before his return, is a question left exactly where it was found. Nothing in P1 through P4 turns on it. - So do the length and severity of the final tribulation, whether the "man of lawlessness" is one person or a recurring power, and what future God holds for the Jewish people. The one thing settled is that the church meets its Lord when he comes, and that he comes once. - Nobody is put outside the faith. Christians who expect a pre-tribulation rapture are brothers and sisters holding a mistaken view on a secondary question, and the case against that view is made from the texts they love. Therefore, the New Testament's hope is a single, public, unmistakable return of Christ, at which the dead are raised, his people gather to welcome him, and the world is judged. There is no earlier, quieter coming to take the church out of the way.

On 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary 45. Waco, TX: Word, 1982. Cosby, Michael R. "Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17." Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994): 15-34. (Argues that the formal-reception parallel is overdrawn; engaged in D6.) Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gundry, Robert H. "A Brief Note on 'Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.'" Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 39-41. (The reply to Cosby.) Lattimore, Richmond. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1942. (The epitaph usage of "snatched away" behind 4:17.) Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Anchor Bible 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. (On the epitaph usage of "snatched away" behind 4:17.) Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Witherington, Ben, III. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. On the Olivet Discourse and the return of Christ: Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Carson, D. A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 9, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. 4th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927. (The papyri and inscriptions behind parousia as a royal visit.) Erickson, Millard J. A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Oepke, Albrecht. "παρουσία, πάρειμι." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 5, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. (Chapter 8, for the reading of Mark 13 engaged in D13.) Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008. Against a two-stage coming: Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. (On Revelation 3:10 and 7:14.) Campbell, David. Unhinged: Restoring Sanity to End Times Teaching. David Campbell Christian Publishing, 2025. (Chapters 2, 3, 15 and 16.) Craig, William Lane. "Doctrine of the Last Things," parts 2 and 3. Defenders Podcast, Series 2. Reasonable Faith, 2 and 9 July 2014. reasonablefaith.org. Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. Gundry, Robert H. First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won't Come before the Antichrist Does. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. (Includes the assessment of Pseudo-Ephraem.) Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. Moo, Douglas J. "A Case for the Posttribulation Rapture." In Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, by Craig A. Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo, edited by Alan Hultberg. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pre-tribulation and prewrath sources engaged: Blaising, Craig A. "A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture." In Three Views on the Rapture, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint, 1993. English, E. Schuyler. Re-Thinking the Rapture. Travelers Rest, SC: Southern Bible Book House, 1954. (The "departure" reading of apostasia engaged in D11.) Feinberg, Paul D. "The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position." In The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? by Gleason L. Archer Jr., Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, and Richard R. Reiter. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Hultberg, Alan. "A Case for the Prewrath Rapture." In Three Views on the Rapture, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Ice, Thomas, and Timothy Demy, eds. When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995. MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Christ's Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer. Chicago: Moody, 2012. Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958. (The rapture and second advent contrasted, engaged in D4.) Rosenthal, Marvin. The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 2007. Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1995. (The day of the Lord as a period, engaged in D11.) Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992. (On 3:10.) Walvoord, John F. The Rapture Question. Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1957. (The first edition, p. 148, for the sentence quoted in D5; the revised edition, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979, removes it.) On the history of the doctrine: Alexander, Paul J. The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition. Edited by Dorothy deF. Abrahamse. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. (The Pseudo-Ephraem text.) Bruce, F. F. Review of The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin, by Dave MacPherson. The Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975): 58. (Direct dependence on MacDonald judged unlikely; the idea "in the air" in the 1820s and 1830s.) Darby, John Nelson. "The Irrationalism of Infidelity." In The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, vol. 6, edited by William Kelly. London: G. Morrish, n.d. (His own account of the 1830 visit to Port Glasgow.) Darby, John Nelson. Letters of J. N. D. Vol. 3. Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n.d. (The 1855 letter to Tholuck, dating his understanding of the church's heavenly calling to 1827 and Isaiah 32.) Edwards, Morgan. Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties. Philadelphia: Dobson and Lang, 1788. Flegg, Columba Graham. "Gathered Under Apostles": A Study of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Gribben, Crawford. Writing the Rapture: Prophecy Fiction in Evangelical America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Ice, Thomas D. "Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald." Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 155-168. (The pre-tribulation reply to MacPherson, engaged in D7.) Ice, Thomas D., and Timothy J. Demy. "The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation." Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 306-317. (The case for Pseudo-Ephraem as a pre-tribulation witness, engaged in D7.) Lacunza, Manuel [Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra]. The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. Translated by Edward Irving. 2 vols. London: L. B. Seeley and Son, 1827. MacPherson, Dave. The Incredible Cover-Up. Medford, OR: Omega Publications, 1975. MacPherson, Dave. The Rapture Plot. Simpsonville, SC: Millennium III Publishers, 1994. MacPherson, Dave. The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin. Kansas City, MO: Heart of America Bible Society, 1973. (The first book in the series.) Norton, Robert. Memoirs of James and George MacDonald, of Port-Glasgow. London: John F. Shaw, 1840. (Prints Margaret MacDonald's own account of her 1830 utterance, pp. 171-176.) Norton, Robert. The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets in the Catholic Apostolic Church. London: Bosworth and Harrison, 1861. (The reprint, with the claim of priority.) Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Tregelles, S. P. The Hope of Christ's Second Coming. London: Houlston and Wright, 1864. Weber, Timothy P. Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1875-1982. Enl. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Wilkinson, Paul Richard. For Zion's Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Ancient sources: Augustine. The City of God 20.19. (On the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2.) Didache 16. (Watchfulness and the deceiver of the world in one chapter; engaged in D5.) Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.25-30. (The antichrist's reign before the Lord's coming; engaged in D5.) Biblical citations: Exodus 8:22; 13:21; 40:34. 1 Kings 8:10-11. Isaiah 13:6-10; 27:13. Daniel 7:13; 12:1-2. Amos 5:18. Zephaniah 1:14-18. Zechariah 12:10; 14:4. Matthew 4:5; 13:30, 39-43; 16:18; 24:3, 9-10, 14, 21-22, 26-33, 36-44; 25:5-6, 10, 19, 31-32; 27:27. Mark 13:3, 14, 20, 22, 24-27. Luke 2:1; 17:30, 34-37. John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 14:2-3, 23; 16:33; 17:15; 21:18-19. Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; 11:28; 14:22; 17:1-10; 21:21; 23:11; 28:15-16. Romans 2:5; 5:9; 8:9, 23; 11:5, 25-26; 16:25. 1 Corinthians 1:8; 5:5; 11:23; 15:23-26, 51-55. Ephesians 3:5-6. Philippians 3:20-21; 4:5. Colossians 3:4, 12. 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-4, 9. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10; 2:1-8. 1 Timothy 4:1. 2 Timothy 2:17-18. Titus 2:13. Hebrews 9:28. 2 Peter 3:8-10. 1 John 3:2. Jude 9. Revelation 1:7, 9; 3:10; 4:1; 7:3, 14; 13:10; 14:12-13; 16:2, 15; 20:4-6; 21:2-3; 22:20.
+ Paul promised the church deliverance from "the wrath to come" (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:9). The tribulation is God's wrath poured out on the world, so a church kept from wrath must be taken out before it begins.
1. The wrath Paul names is the final judgment, not a period of years. Read the verse whole: "to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:10) The deliverer is the risen Jesus, and the wrath is the thing his resurrection saves us from. Whenever Paul speaks of being saved from wrath, he means the judgment of the last day, "the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed" (Romans 2:5). As he puts it to the Romans, "we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (Romans 5:9). The other verse fits the same picture. When 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says God has not destined us for wrath, it sits inside a paragraph about "the day of the Lord" that comes like a thief, which is the day Christ returns (P2). And Paul puts wrath and rescue on the same day: relief for the afflicted and vengeance on the wicked "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). Nothing in these verses is a seven-year calendar. 2. Being kept from wrath has never meant being removed from trouble. Scripture's pattern is protection inside the trial, not evacuation before it. - Israel stayed in Egypt through the plagues, and God said of Goshen, the district where they lived, "no swarms of flies shall be there, that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth" (Exodus 8:22). - Noah rode out the flood inside it. - Jesus prayed for his disciples in exactly these terms: "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one." (John 17:15) An umbrella keeps you from the rain and leaves you standing in the storm. 3. Tribulation and wrath are different words with different targets. The objection's best point deserves to be granted at once: God's wrath is not for his children. A newer cousin of the pre-tribulation view, called the prewrath view, builds carefully on exactly that. On its scheme the church endures the antichrist's persecution and is taken out only before God's final wrath falls. But the two words are not the same word. Tribulation (thlipsis, pressure) is what the world does to believers; wrath (orge) is what God does to the wicked. Jesus promises the first to his own: "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake." (Matthew 24:9) "In the world you will have tribulation." (John 16:33) Paul preached that "through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). Revelation keeps the distinction too. Its judgments arrive in sets of seven, seals, then trumpets, then bowls, and God's servants are sealed before the trumpets sound (Revelation 7:3), while the bowls of wrath at the end fall on those who bear the mark of the beast, Revelation's name for the final persecuting power (Revelation 16:2). A church that suffers tribulation and is spared wrath is not a contradiction. It is the ordinary Christian life carried to its end. 4. The prewrath view still needs a coming that leaves and comes back. Prewrath places the rapture at the coming of Matthew 24:30-31, before the final bowls of wrath. That is a real improvement on the pre-tribulation scheme, and it accepts P1 and P2. What it keeps is a coming stretched over a season: Christ appears, gathers his people, withdraws with them while the bowls fall, and descends again for the last battle at Armageddon. The trouble is that the texts which name the gathering put the judgment in the same breath. - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations" (Matthew 25:31-32). The same coming, the same angels, and the nations at the throne in the same "when". - Paul puts relief for the afflicted and vengeance on the wicked in one "when" (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10), and the man of lawlessness is destroyed "by the appearance of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). The appearing itself ends him. There is no campaign that follows it. - Prewrath readers point to Matthew 24:22, where the days of persecution are "cut short", and take the coming that gathers the elect to be what cuts them short. Fair enough. But that carries the church exactly as far as Matthew 24:31, which is where P1 already puts it. The next step, a withdrawal with Christ while the trumpets and bowls fall on the earth, is written in no text. Jesus goes straight from the gathering "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matthew 24:29) to the lesson of the fig tree (his picture of signs telling you the season is near) and then to the throne. Paul goes from the revelation of Christ to relief and vengeance in one "when". A coming that arrives, leaves, and arrives again is two comings wearing one name, and one coming is what P1 through P4 establish.
+ The Thessalonians were "shaken" and "alarmed" at a report that the day of the Lord had come (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Believers expecting to meet Christ would have rejoiced, so their panic makes sense only if Paul had taught they would be taken out first.
1. Nobody knows what the false report said. Paul tells us what he taught, not what the rumour claimed. Reconstructing the views of his opponents is guesswork in every letter, and here he gives us one phrase: a claim, by "a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us", that "the day of the Lord has come" (2 Thessalonians 2:2). At least three errors fit that phrase. - Someone may have spiritualised the whole thing, teaching that the day of the Lord was not a future event at all but something that had already happened invisibly. That was the error of "Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17-18) It would alarm anyone whose parents were still in the ground. - Or the Greek verb, enistemi, which can mean "is here" or "is at hand", may point to a claim that the day was upon them, with a forged letter to back it. - Or someone told them the day had come and they had somehow missed it. Paul's reply answers all three at once: not yet, and here is what has to happen first. 2. On the pre-tribulation reading the passage makes less sense, not more. Suppose Paul had taught them that the church would be taken away before the day of the Lord. Then a rumour that the day had arrived could not have frightened them for a moment, because they were still there, Paul was still writing to them, and the graves were still full. Stranger still, Paul's cure for people supposedly terrified that they had missed the rapture never mentions a rapture. He talks about the rebellion, the man of lawlessness, and the Lord's visible coming to destroy him. That is an odd way to reassure people about an event he is said to have considered separate from all of those. 3. Even on the pre-tribulation timetable this passage describes the visible coming. Pre-tribulation writers agree that the day Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2 comes after the rebellion and the man of lawlessness, and that the coming of verse 8 is the public one that destroys him. So by every reading, the rapture is not in this chapter. If it exists, it has to be carried in from outside. The usual route in is Paul's remark that something "now restrains" the man of lawlessness until "he is out of the way" (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Pre-tribulation readers identify the restrainer with the Holy Spirit living in the church, and his removal with the church's departure. Three things stand in the way. - Nobody knows who the restrainer is. Paul had told the Thessalonians in person and never tells us, and Augustine confessed in the City of God that he did not know what Paul meant. The candidates across church history include the Roman empire and its emperor, the preaching of the gospel, the archangel Michael, and the Holy Spirit and the church, and the text itself calls the restrainer "what" in verse 6 and "he" in verse 7. A doctrine cannot hang from a pronoun nobody has been able to identify since the second century. - "Out of the way" is not "out of the world". The Greek says the restrainer comes "out of the midst", which is to say he stops standing in the way. And on the pre-tribulation scheme itself, people are converted and sealed during the tribulation (Revelation 7:3, 14), while "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Romans 8:9). So even on that scheme the Spirit has not left the earth. What is supposed to leave is one mode of his work, and that is a distinction the text nowhere draws. - Paul attaches "our being gathered together to him" to the coming of this very chapter (2 Thessalonians 2:1), and the gathering word is Jesus' word for the gathering of the elect after the tribulation (P2). 4. Fear at such a rumour is natural on any view. Of course believers hope for the day. But a claim that it had arrived with none of its promised features visible, no resurrection, no appearing, no Lord, would mean either that the promise had failed or that they had been deceived. "Do not be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed" is a pastor calming a congregation frightened by a rumour. It is not evidence of a doctrine he never states.
+ Revelation 3:10 promises the church, "I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world." You cannot be kept from an hour while living through it, so the promise is removal before the tribulation.
1. The same phrase in Jesus' mouth rules out removal. The Greek construction, tereo ek, "keep from", occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, and it is John reporting Jesus: "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one." (John 17:15) Same author, same verb, same preposition. And the sentence explicitly contrasts keeping from with taking out. Unless there is a reason to read John against himself, Revelation 3:10 promises what John 17:15 promises: protection through, not evacuation before. The strongest pre-tribulation treatment of the verse rests on the claim that "keep from" implies prior removal, and the one parallel says the reverse. 2. The promise was made to a real congregation in a real town. It is a reward for what the Philadelphians, a small church in what is now western Turkey, had already done: "Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you" (Revelation 3:10). A promise to remove people nineteen centuries after every one of them had died would not be a promise to them. "The whole world", oikoumene, is the word Luke uses for the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1) and for a famine across it (Acts 11:28), and the trial coming on it fits the pressure that Philadelphia and the six neighbouring churches addressed in Revelation 2-3 were about to face. It is true that the letters also speak to the church of every age, as each one says, "he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". The wider application is the same promise made wider: kept through. 3. Revelation shows the church inside the trial, protected. The book keeps meeting believers on the ground after the trouble has started. - The servants of God are sealed before the trumpets sound (Revelation 7:3). - The great multitude are "the ones coming out of the great tribulation" who "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14): believers who went through it. - Under the beast, "Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints." (Revelation 13:10) "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." (Revelation 14:13) A church already taken up at chapter 4 (pre-tribulation readers take the "Come up here" spoken to John in Revelation 4:1 as the rapture) would leave those calls addressed to no one. The argument that the church is absent from chapters 4 to 19 because the word "church" is absent proves too much: the word is also absent from chapters 20 and 21, where the bride of the Lamb comes down from heaven, and from 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 John and Jude. 4. Keeping from a trial is what protection looks like everywhere in Scripture. Goshen in the plagues, the blood on the doorposts, Daniel's friends in the furnace, the sealed servants under the trumpets. God's people are marked and kept while judgment passes through the same streets. That is the picture Revelation 3:10 belongs to.
+ In one set of passages Christ comes for his saints, meets them in the air and takes them to the Father's house (John 14:2-3); in another he comes with his saints, stands on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4) and judges the nations. Two descriptions, two events.
1. Every "for" is also a "with". The strongest form of this objection is a list. Pre-tribulation writers set the passages in two columns: - In one, Christ comes for his saints, meets them in the air, and takes them to the Father's house, with no signs before it and before the day of wrath. - In the other, he comes with his saints, to the earth, after the signs, to judge the nations and end the wrath. Two columns, they conclude, two events. Start with the first entry, because it fails on its own passage. The text said to describe the coming for the saints opens by describing the coming with them: "through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep" (1 Thessalonians 4:14), and a chapter earlier Paul prays for their holiness "at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints" (1 Thessalonians 3:13). The welcome explains how one movement can be both. The dead rise, the living are caught up, and together they come in with him (P4). A father drives to the airport for his children and comes home with them. That is one trip. 2. Differences in emphasis are not differences in date. It is true that the passages stress different things. 1 Thessalonians 4 is comfort about the dead, Revelation 19 is judgment on the beast, Matthew 25 is sheep and goats. But the Gospels' accounts of Easter morning stress different things too, and nobody concludes there were four resurrections. Paul himself dates the two emphases to one day: rest for the afflicted and vengeance on the wicked "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven", "on that day" (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10). Two sides of one coin, and the coin is dated. 3. The sharpest contrasts come from the theory, not the texts. Suppose you sort your post into two piles, "bills" and "letters from friends", and you decide which pile an envelope belongs in by whether it asks for money. You will certainly end up with two piles. The sorting will have told you nothing you did not put into it. Now look down the two columns again. "No signs before it", "before the wrath", "believers removed and unbelievers left", "to the Father's house for seven years": none of these is read off a rapture passage. Each one is the pre-tribulation timetable written into the column first and then discovered there. Take those entries out and what remains is a set of differences in emphasis: the air and the earth, comfort and judgment, the saints met and the saints accompanying. A method that sorts verses by features borrowed from the theory under test would find two comings in the Easter accounts too. As it happens, it has already produced that kind of result: pre-tribulation and prewrath writers, using the same columns, disagree about which passages belong in which. 4. John 14 does not say where the "place" is. "I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." (John 14:3) The promise is to be with him wherever he is. In the same conversation he says of the believer, "we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23), and Revelation ends with the dwelling of God coming down: "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them" (Revelation 21:3). A seven-year stay in heaven has to be imported into the many rooms. The text does not put it there. 5. The Mount of Olives belongs to the same day as the meeting in the air. Nobody disputes that Christ's return reaches the earth. The question is whether the meeting in the air is a different day from the arrival on the ground, and Paul answers it: "and so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). If he descends to stand on the Mount of Olives, they are with him there. The air is where they meet him, not where they stay.
+ Christ could come at any moment: "The Lord is at hand" (Philippians 4:5), "Surely I am coming soon" (Revelation 22:20), yet the visible coming must be preceded by the rebellion and the man of lawlessness. Only a signless coming before those events keeps the hope imminent.
1. Imminence is the strongest argument the pre-tribulation view has. Imminence is the teaching that Christ could return at any moment, with nothing left on the calendar that has to happen first. This is the best case the pre-tribulation view has, and it deserves to be met as such. The leading pre-tribulation theologian of the last century, John Walvoord, rested his case here rather than on any single verse. In the first edition of his book on the question he wrote that "neither posttribulationism nor pretribulationism is an explicit teaching of the Scriptures. The Bible does not, in so many words, state either." The answer, he added, turns on how one understands the church. So the claim is that expectancy needs a coming with nothing scheduled in front of it. The expectancy itself is not in dispute; the New Testament commands it. The question is what the New Testament thought expectancy was compatible with. 2. The New Testament's own expectancy includes delay and events that come first. Picture a sailor's wife who has been told her husband's ship is coming home. She does not know the day, so she keeps the house ready and looks out to sea every morning. She also knows the ship has to round the headland before it can dock, and that she will see it from the hill when it does. Knowing that one thing comes first has not cost her a minute of expectancy. That is the New Testament's posture. - Jesus says the end will not come until "this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations" (Matthew 24:14). - In his parables "the bridegroom was delayed" (Matthew 25:5) and the master returned "after a long time" (Matthew 25:19). - Peter was told he would grow old and die (John 21:18-19); Paul was told he must testify in Rome (Acts 23:11). - And the verse the objection has to explain away is Paul's own: "that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" (2 Thessalonians 2:3), written to people he had just told to stay awake. Paul did not think "watch" and "certain things first" contradicted each other. You can keep your bags packed by the front door and still know the taxi will not come before the bank opens. 3. "At hand" is nearness on God's calendar, not a signless hour. Peter reminds his readers that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8), and the same man also said "the day of the Lord will come like a thief" (2 Peter 3:10). The command to be ready rests on the unknown hour, "for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect" (Matthew 24:44), and an unknown hour is not a signless one. In the same breath Jesus gives the fig tree: "when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates" (Matthew 24:33), and then, "concerning that day and hour no one knows" (Matthew 24:36). Signs tell you the season. They never tell you the day. Jesus held both in one discourse. 4. A signless coming is the one Jesus told us not to believe in. "If they say, Look, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:26-27) The imminence argument requires exactly the kind of coming the text warns against. The earliest Christians, for their part, held watchfulness and signs together without strain. The Didache, a church manual from about the end of the first century, tells its readers to be ready because they do not know the hour, and in the same chapter expects the deceiver of the world to appear before the Lord comes on the clouds. Irenaeus, writing around AD 180, expected the antichrist's reign to run its course first and still looked for the Lord. The church waited that way for eighteen centuries without a two-stage coming. That is evidence enough that expectancy survives without it.
+ The "civic welcome" meaning of "to meet" is overdrawn: Michael Cosby's study of Hellenistic receptions showed that Paul's scene lacks most of their features, and the word itself just means "meeting". Nothing in 1 Thessalonians 4 says which way the party goes afterwards.
1. The welcome never depended on a technical term. The study has a real point, and it should be conceded. Cosby is right that apantesis is not a rigid technical term and that 1 Thessalonians 4 is not a full civic reception of the Hellenistic kind (the Greek-speaking world of the centuries after Alexander the Great), with speeches and garlands. The published reply to his study was that stripping away the incidentals leaves the core intact. The word's ordinary use, in everyday papyrus documents, in inscriptions and in the New Testament, is for going out to greet someone who is arriving. And the direction is supplied not by dictionaries but by the two other New Testament uses, both of which spell it out. The virgins "went in with him to the marriage feast" (Matthew 25:10). The Roman Christians came out to Three Taverns, "And when we came into Rome" (Acts 28:16). In the only parallels Scripture offers, the welcoming party turns around. 2. Direction is settled by what Paul and Jesus say happens next. Paul closes with "and so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17), and the Lord is coming to the earth (Acts 1:11), to sit on his throne with the nations gathered before him (Matthew 25:31-32). If the party went back up to heaven for seven years, Paul chose the one word whose every other New Testament use runs the opposite way, and then said nothing to correct the impression. 3. Even without the word, the passage cannot describe a secret removal. A cry of command, the voice of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and the dead rising from their graves: this is the noisiest scene in the New Testament. Say, for the sake of argument, that "in the air" is simply where the meeting happens and nothing more. Even then, nothing in the verse describes a departure to heaven afterwards, and the popular sense of "rapture" as people vanishing from cars and aeroplanes is not in the text at all. It is in the Left Behind novels.
+ The doctrine is older than Darby: a sermon under Ephraem the Syrian's name and the Baptist Morgan Edwards taught a removal long before him, and Darby dated his own insight to 1827, before the Scottish vision he is accused of copying. A doctrine's age proves nothing anyway.
1. The age of a doctrine does not decide whether it is true. The logic is completely right. When a doctrine arose says nothing about whether it is correct, and nothing in P1 through P4 depends on a date. The Reformers of the sixteenth century, Luther and Calvin among them, were told that their teaching was new, and the reply then is the reply now: go to the texts. 2. The two-stage coming took shape in Britain between 1827 and 1833. The two-stage coming, Christ arriving once to collect the church and again, years later, to judge the world, has a short history and a small cast. - Start in the late 1820s, when the study of Bible prophecy in Britain had become something close to a national excitement. In 1827 Edward Irving, then one of London's most celebrated preachers, published his translation of a book on the coming of the Messiah by Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit (Roman Catholic) priest from Chile, and his friends took from it a return of the Lord that unfolds in stages rather than in a single hour. From 1826 those friends met each year for prophecy conferences at Albury Park, Henry Drummond's house in Surrey. - Early in 1830, in the shipbuilding town of Port Glasgow on the Clyde, a fifteen-year-old named Margaret MacDonald lay ill in bed in a household caught up in a revival, tongues and claimed healings included, and spoke a long prophecy. She wrote it down herself, and Robert Norton, a physician, printed her account ten years later in a memoir of her brothers. Reprinting it in 1861, Norton claimed that here, for the first time, the Lord's earlier appearing to those who look for him had been distinguished from the final stage of his coming, when every eye will see him. - John Nelson Darby was an Anglo-Irish clergyman then leaving the Church of Ireland for the loose network of house assemblies that became the Plymouth Brethren (named for the English port where an early assembly met). Later in 1830 he travelled to Port Glasgow to examine the tongues and healings for himself and came away convinced they were not from God. Between 1831 and 1833, at prophecy conferences at Powerscourt House in the hills south of Dublin, which Irving attended in 1831 and Darby came to dominate, a coming in two stages with the church removed at the first was put on the table and argued over. Darby carried it through the Brethren, and the Scofield Reference Bible, a study Bible with the scheme printed in its notes, later carried it through America. - The claim that Darby "got it from Margaret MacDonald" belongs to Dave MacPherson, an American journalist who pressed it in a series of books from 1973 onward, built chiefly on Norton's text. The suspicion is older than he is. Samuel Tregelles, a Brethren scholar of the Greek New Testament who had broken with Darby, wrote in 1864 that he knew of no definite teaching of a secret rapture until it was given out as an "utterance" in Irving's church and received there as the voice of the Spirit. 3. Historians on both sides doubt that Darby copied MacDonald. It is a good story, and the historians who know the sources best decline to tell it. The best-known answer to MacPherson came from the pre-tribulation side, from Thomas Ice in 1990, and on the main points historians outside his camp agree with him. - Darby judged the Port Glasgow prophecies counterfeit. A man who thought the tongues and healings were the devil's work is an odd candidate for taking his doctrine from one of them, and he never named MacDonald, Irving or anyone else as a source. - Darby dated the idea earlier himself. In an 1855 letter to a German professor he looked back twenty-eight years and traced the beginning of his thinking to 1827, when a fall from his horse laid him up for months. Reading Isaiah 32 on his sickbed persuaded him that an earthly kingdom for Israel still lay ahead, and from that he drew what he called the church's heavenly calling: the teaching that the church's destiny lies in heaven while Israel's lies on earth. That distinction is the heart of dispensationalism, the system of Bible reading behind the pre-tribulation view, and with it, he said, came his hope of the Lord's coming for his saints. A man remembering across twenty-eight years may be recalling a seed rather than the finished scheme, and that is exactly what is disputed. But it is the only first-hand testimony there is, and it puts the seed three years before the vision. - The two accusers do not even point at the same room. Tregelles placed his "utterance" in Irving's London congregation, where tongues broke out in 1831, and never quoted it. MacPherson points to a sickbed in Port Glasgow the year before. Two charges that agree on neither the year, the city nor the speaker have not identified a source. What they agree on is the decade. - MacDonald's vision does not say what the story needs it to say. It warns of "the fiery trial which is to try us", says that "the trial of the Church is from Antichrist", and promises that only those with the light of God in them will see the sign of his appearing. That is a church inside the antichrist's trial, promised sight of a sign rather than removal from the world. Even MacPherson reads it as a taking of the Spirit-filled only, a partial rapture, which is a different doctrine again. And two passages that make it read as a coming after the tribulation were dropped from Norton's 1861 reprint, so the version later readers met had been edited toward the very doctrine it is supposed to have started. - The professional verdicts are cautious. Ernest Sandeen, the standard historian of the movement, called the Tregelles charge "groundless and pernicious". A New Testament scholar raised among the Brethren, reviewing MacPherson's first book in 1975, thought direct dependence on MacDonald unlikely and said the idea was in the air among the prophecy students of the 1820s and 1830s. Timothy Weber found the MacDonald account "still not totally convincing" and wrote that historians "are still trying to determine how or where Darby got it". The historian of the Catholic Apostolic Church, the body that grew out of Irving's movement, judged that neither Tregelles' charge nor MacPherson's case is decisive, and from the dispensational side Paul Wilkinson has argued the 1827 dating at length. - What nobody disputes is the time, the place and the company. The two-stage coming took shape between 1827 and 1833 among people who read Lacunza, listened to Irving and met at Powerscourt. Whether one Scottish teenager was a link in that chain is a footnote, and one nobody should print as fact. That the chain is a nineteenth-century one is the record, and a date is not a smear. 4. The earlier witnesses come to one sentence and one student essay. - A Latin sermon, "On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World", came down under the name of Ephraem the Syrian, a fourth-century hymn writer. It is anonymous, though, and could date anywhere from the fourth century to the seventh, which is why scholars call its author Pseudo-Ephraem ("pseudo" marks a work wearing a famous name its real author never owned). The sermon has one sentence about the saints and elect being gathered and taken to the Lord before the coming tribulation, and the modern editor of the Latin text did read that sentence as a removal. But the same sermon goes on to describe the saints enduring the antichrist's persecution on earth. The pre-tribulation reply, that those later saints are converts made after the removal, is a distinction the sermon never draws. Even on the friendliest reading it is one sentence in one anonymous sermon, and nobody is known to have cited it for a pre-tribulation rapture until the mid-1990s. - Morgan Edwards, a Welsh Baptist who later became a minister in Philadelphia and helped to found what is now Brown University, wrote an essay as a student in the 1740s proposing that the saints be raised and taken up to the Lord about three and a half years before the millennium (the thousand-year reign of Revelation 20), while judgment fell on the earth below, and he thought well enough of it to print it in 1788. It is a real two-stage scheme, and the nearest thing to a forerunner anyone has found. It also stands alone. It made no converts that anyone has traced, and there is no evidence that Darby or anyone at Powerscourt had heard of it. - Historians have turned up a few other scattered hints from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and hints are what they are. 5. Every creed and confession teaches one coming. - The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, the short statements of faith recited in church, confess that he will come again to judge the living and the dead. - Augustine's City of God argues at length for one resurrection and one judgment. - The Reformation confessions, the longer statements of doctrine the Protestant churches drew up, say the same: Lutheran (the Augsburg Confession), Reformed (the Westminster Confession) and Anglican (the Thirty-Nine Articles). No creed, confession or catechism (the question-and-answer books used to teach the faith) teaches a two-stage coming, and no church took one up before the 1830s. That is not an argument from authority, which would say "believe it because the church has always said so". It settles who has to do the proving. A reading held by every branch of the church for eighteen centuries does not have to justify itself against a reading that appeared around 1830; the new reading does. When a family has read a grandfather's will the same way for three generations and one cousin announces that they all misread it, it is the cousin who has to show his working. 6. The doctrine's history explains why it feels obvious. The Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, with the scheme printed in its notes beneath the text, went into millions of homes. A generation of pastors learned the scheme at Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924. Hal Lindsey sold millions of copies of it in a 1970 paperback, and the Left Behind novels sold tens of millions more from 1995 onward. Many evangelicals have never heard another view and assume the Bible simply says it. That is no fault in them, and it is a reason to go back to the texts, which is what P1 through P4 do.
+ Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse to Jewish disciples, about Israel's elect, before the church existed. The church is a mystery hidden from the prophets (Ephesians 3:5-6), with its own hope revealed to Paul, so the gathering after the tribulation is Israel's and the church's is elsewhere.
1. The men Jesus was speaking to were the church's foundation. The audience on the Mount of Olives was "Peter and James and John and Andrew" (Mark 13:3). Peter is the man to whom Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18), and these four are among the men to whom, a few days later, he said, "I will come again and will take you to myself" (John 14:3), the verse the objection assigns to the church. The twelve cannot be Israel on Tuesday and the church on Thursday. 2. "The elect" is one people in the Gospels and in Paul. Jesus shortens the days for "the elect", warns that false christs will try "to lead astray, if possible, the elect" (Mark 13:22), and gathers "his elect from the four winds". Paul uses the same word for the church: "God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved" (Colossians 3:12). When he speaks of election inside Israel, he means the believing remnant, "chosen by grace" (Romans 11:5), not the nation as such, and the remnant is in the church. Christians do disagree about Israel's future, and many read Romans 11:25-26 as promising a great turning of the Jewish people to Christ. Nothing in P1 through P4 needs that disagreement settled. Dispensationalism, the system of Bible reading behind the pre-tribulation view, treats Israel and the church as two peoples with two programmes. Yet even its progressive wing, which keeps a future for ethnic Israel, holds that Jew and Gentile in Christ are one people with one hope. 3. "Mystery" means newly revealed, not separately scheduled. In Paul a mystery is something once hidden and now made known: the gospel itself (Romans 16:25), the Gentiles as "fellow heirs, members of the same body" (Ephesians 3:6), Israel's partial hardening (Romans 11:25), and the transformation of the living without dying, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). What is new in that last mystery is that the living are changed, not that there is a second coming to change them at. None of Paul's mysteries is a separate event on the calendar. 4. Paul's "word from the Lord" cuts the other way. The objection needs 1 Thessalonians 4 to be a new revelation the Gospels could not contain. Paul presents it as the opposite, "by a word from the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:15), and builds it out of the Lord's own clouds, trumpet, angels and gathering (P2).
+ Jesus said, "one will be taken and one left" (Matthew 24:40-41). That is the rapture: believers taken to be with Christ, unbelievers left behind on the earth.
1. Jesus fixed the meaning of "taken" with the flood. The saying comes with its own key: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." In Noah's days people went on with life "until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:37-39) The ones taken by the flood were the wicked. Noah was left. On the more natural reading, then, the one "taken" at the coming is taken in judgment and the one "left" is the one who is saved, and the title of the Left Behind novels may well have it backwards. The pre-tribulation reply has a real point of grammar: the verbs differ. The flood "swept them all away" (airo), while the man in the field is "taken" (paralambano), the verb of John 14:3, "I will ... take you to myself". But paralambano says nothing about where anyone goes. The soldiers "took Jesus" into the governor's headquarters with the same verb (Matthew 27:27), and the devil "took him" to the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:5). The verb reports that someone was taken; the context says where, and the context Jesus supplies is a flood. 2. Luke's version points the same way. When the disciples ask where the taken are taken, Jesus answers, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (Luke 17:37) Some readers take the vultures to be judgment on those left, and the sentence can be read either way. Even then, the passage says nothing about removal before a tribulation. Luke dates the taking to "the day when the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:30), and Matthew has just described that day in verses 30 and 31: the sign in heaven, every tribe mourning, the angels gathering the elect. Whichever way "taken" runs, it happens at the visible coming. 3. The saying is about surprise, not sequence. Two men in a field, two women at a mill, ordinary work interrupted without warning. Its point is the one Jesus draws from it: "Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Matthew 24:44) That is the thief in the night again, and it belongs to the one public coming.
+ Jesus said he would come "like a thief" (Matthew 24:43; Revelation 16:15), and a thief comes secretly. A secret coming is biblical, and 1 Thessalonians 4 describes it.
1. A thief is unexpected, not invisible. The point of the image is stated in the verse: "if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake" (Matthew 24:43). It is about the unknown hour. Once the thief has come, no one in the house imagines the robbery was invisible. Peter uses the same image for the loudest day in history: "the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar" (2 Peter 3:10). And "Behold, I am coming like a thief!" (Revelation 16:15) is spoken inside the sixth bowl of wrath, as the kings of the earth are gathered for the last battle at Armageddon, which is the public end on every view. 2. Paul applies the thief to the same day as the trumpet. "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:2) That sentence follows immediately on the cry of command, the archangel's voice and the trumpet of God. The same author, in the same breath, says the day that comes like a thief is the day with the trumpet. The thief describes its timing; the trumpet describes its volume. 3. The surprise is the world's, not the church's. "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief." (1 Thessalonians 5:4) The image is about the unprepared, people "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" until the day arrives. That is why it fits a public coming that catches the world at its business, and why it says nothing about a coming the world never sees.
+ The "day of the Lord" is the whole period of end-time judgment, not a single day, and Paul says it cannot begin until "the departure" (apostasia) has happened (2 Thessalonians 2:3). That departure is the rapture, so the rapture comes first.
1. The prophets' day of the Lord can indeed be a season. Amos warned Israel that the day of the Lord would be darkness and not light (Amos 5:18), Zephaniah's great day spreads over a whole campaign of judgment (Zephaniah 1:14-18), and Isaiah applies the phrase to the fall of Babylon (Isaiah 13:6-9). So far the objection is right. Nothing in P1 through P4 requires the day to be twenty-four hours long. What they require is that Paul's day be identified by what happens on it, and Paul supplies that. 2. Paul dates his day by what happens on it. - It is "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:8), the day when the Lord "is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" and "comes on that day to be glorified in his saints" (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10). It falls on the unprepared as "sudden destruction" (1 Thessalonians 5:3), not as a quiet removal the world notices later. It "will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and it is the day that man is brought to nothing "by the appearance of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). - On the pre-tribulation timetable the day of the Lord opens with the rapture, before the man of lawlessness is revealed. Paul says the reverse: the day does not come until he is revealed. A period that begins before its own precondition is not a reading of the verse. It is a rewriting of it. - If the invitation says the party cannot start until the guest of honour arrives, nobody reads it as saying the party starts an hour before he does. 3. "The rebellion" is a rebellion. - Apostasia is the word English "apostasy" comes from. Its one other New Testament use is Acts 21:21, where Paul is accused of teaching Jews to forsake Moses, and its cousin verb in 1 Timothy 4:1 warns that "some will depart from the faith". In the Greek of Paul's day it meant revolt, political or religious, and never a bodily departure from one place to another. - The objection has a real historical point: several sixteenth-century English Bibles rendered the word "a departing". But they meant defection, which is what "departing" meant in the English of the day, and every major translation since renders it "rebellion", "apostasy" or "falling away". The departure reading has stayed a minority even among pre-tribulation scholars. - Paul's article, "the rebellion", points to a revolt his readers already expected, the one Jesus foretold when he said "many will fall away" (Matthew 24:10), and Paul pairs it with the man who leads it. A departure of the church would be the one event on the list Paul says nothing about. 4. Not being destined for wrath is settled by who the wrath is for. "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9), and the wrath of that day falls "on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalonians 1:8). The church is spared it not by leaving seven years early but by standing on the other side of the sentence, gathered to the Lord as he arrives (P2, P4).
+ Paul says the resurrection comes "each in his own order" (1 Corinthians 15:23), and Revelation 20:4 raises the beast's martyrs after the tribulation. The church's resurrection before the tribulation is one more order, and "the last trumpet" is the last for the church, not for history.
1. The pre-tribulation view needs an order Paul does not name. The orders Paul does name are not in dispute. He lists two: Christ, and then "at his coming those who belong to Christ". That is one line, between the Lord and his people, and the whole of his people stand on the far side of it. The objection needs a second line running through the middle of "those who belong to Christ", separating the church from the believers who die in the tribulation. Paul's text does not have it. The word "order" cannot supply an order the apostle would have needed to state. A wedding invitation that says "the bride, then the guests" has not left room for a second party of guests to arrive a week later. 2. Revelation calls the resurrection after the tribulation the first one. - Take the verse as the objection takes it, a bodily resurrection of the beast's martyrs after the tribulation. John sees those who were "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus" and who had refused the beast come to life, and he gives the scene a name: "This is the first resurrection" (Revelation 20:4-5). Now count on the pre-tribulation scheme. The church rose seven years before these martyrs, so the church's resurrection would be the first and this one the second, and John has labelled the wrong one. - Some Christians read the first resurrection differently, as the believer's life with Christ between death and his return. On that reading there is no bodily resurrection in the verse at all, and so nothing for the objection to build on. The verse fails the objection either way. - The pre-tribulation reply is that "first resurrection" names a kind, the rising of the righteous, which happens in instalments. A kind can have instalments, certainly. But Revelation states none, and the one passage that could have shown a church resurrection before the martyrs' shows the martyrs and calls them first. - Daniel had already tied the resurrection to the far side of the trouble: after "a time of trouble, such as never has been", Michael arises, God's people are delivered, and "many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" (Daniel 12:1-2). Paul's resurrection comes "with the voice of an archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and Michael is the only archangel Scripture names (Jude 9). Same archangel, same resurrection, same side of the trouble. 3. A trumpet that is "last for the church" assumes the two-peoples scheme. The "last for the church" reading works only if the trumpet of Matthew 24:31 gathers a different people, and that is the claim examined at D8. Some suggest that Paul's "last trumpet" borrows the army's final call to march, the signal after which nobody waits for another. That is exactly the point. A last call after which a louder one sounds seven years later for the rest of God's people was not the last call.
+ Leading non-dispensational scholars read the "coming of the Son of Man" in Matthew 24:30 and Mark 13:26 as Daniel 7 language for Christ's vindication in AD 70, not as the second coming. If so, the text P1 uses to date the gathering is not about the return at all.
1. This is a serious reading held by serious scholars. N. T. Wright reads Mark 13 as a whole as Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem's fall. R. T. France divides Matthew 24 at verse 36: everything before it, including the coming of the Son of Man in verse 30, was fulfilled in AD 70, and the return of Christ comes into view only from verse 36 onward. They have two good reasons. In Daniel 7:13 the one like a son of man comes to the Ancient of Days, which is movement toward God's throne rather than down from it. And the darkened sun and falling stars are the prophets' stock language for the fall of a nation, used of Babylon in Isaiah 13:10. All of that is possible, and it should be taken seriously. 2. On that reading the pre-tribulation rapture loses far more than P1 does. If Matthew 24:4-35 was fulfilled in AD 70, there is no future seven-year tribulation in the discourse for a church to be removed from, and the gathering "from the four winds" becomes the gathering of the nations into the church by the gospel. The dispensational reading has to keep verses 15-31 in the future, and that is exactly the stretch these scholars assign to the past. A pre-tribulation reader cannot borrow the objection without giving up the tribulation. 3. The chain does not hang from Matthew 24:30. - On either reading, Jesus taught one coming, visible as lightning (Matthew 24:27), at an hour no one knows (Matthew 24:36-44), followed at once by the throne and the nations (Matthew 25:31-32). France reads all of that as the return, and it contains no earlier, quieter coming. - Paul dates the gathering after the man of lawlessness in his own words (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8), calls 1 Thessalonians 4 a word from the Lord, knows one resurrection of Christ's people at the last trumpet (P3), and uses the word for a welcome (P4). None of those premises cites Matthew 24:30 for its date. - The parable of the weeds, which nobody assigns to AD 70, leaves the wheat in the field until the harvest at the close of the age (Matthew 13:30, 39). 4. The reading in P1 remains the more plausible one. The disciples asked about his coming and the end of the age (Matthew 24:3). The sign in heaven and the mourning of "all the tribes of the earth" (Matthew 24:30) echo Zechariah 12:10, which Revelation 1:7 applies to the return with "every eye will see him". And Paul, the earliest reader of this teaching we have, took the clouds, trumpet and gathering as the parousia (P2). Most commentators, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed and evangelical alike, read the discourse as answering both halves of the disciples' question, the temple and the end, with verses 29-31 belonging to the end. That is the ordinary standard for a premise, more plausible than its denial, and here the denial costs the objector more than it costs P1.

Public Theology

Theological Analyses of Societal Issues

Theology of the Family

Where Faith and Family Intersect

Biographies

Notable Works & Great Quotes from Key Figures
Playlist
Justified True Belief