A Brief Case for the Pre-Wrath Rapture
Dec. 4th, 2020
One Small Area of a Massive Puzzle
The complexity of Christian eschatology cannot be understated, and this author does not pretend that this brief work will overturn years of dispensational teaching. The intent is to put forth one small argument for a rapture of the church that takes place sometime after the mid-point of Daniel’s seventieth week but before the “wrath” of God (this will be referred to as pre-wrath for the duration of this work). When dealing with end-time prophecy, discussions can become impeded with questions regarding hermeneutic methodologies, prior held convictions that influence biblical doctrines (such as dispensationalism or covenantal theology), and current beliefs about these events. This one argument is not intended to answer all of the problems or questions that have been or could be raised. The purpose is to cause the reader to consider this one argument apart from all the other “noise” that surrounds the rapture question.
In order to facilitate this endeavor, this work will first ask the question how should one understand Matthew 24? This is a question of hermeneutics. One must determine how one understands before one can discuss what is supposedly understood. Once a hermeneutical approach is established, this work will turn to applying the hermeneutic. The next problem is that even scholars with the same hermeneutical commitments still arrive at different conclusions. So an attempt must be made to adjudicate between the differing positions. This work will show that if one applies a consistent, historical-grammatical hermeneutic of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6, one will understand that the rapture cannot take place prior to the mid-point of the seventieth week of Daniel.
The Edge Pieces
Ask anyone who enjoys a good jigsaw puzzle how to begin and he will advise to start with the edge pieces. This helps frame the entire picture and sets up the boundaries within which all the rest of the pieces will fit. Determining a hermeneutical methodology is the Bible study equivalent of starting with the edge pieces. If a reader attempts to allegorize the text, he will come to a very different interpretation than one who applies a consistent, historical-grammatical interpretive method. For the purpose of this work, the two hermeneutic methods that will be considered are the figurative/allegorical and the historical-grammatical methods.
One of the earliest Christian writers to use the figurative/allegorical method was Origen. In his book Hermeneutics, Dr. Anthony Thiselton discusses Origen’s use of allegorical interpretation saying, “it is often thought that through looking for the ‘spiritual’ meaning Origen sat loose to the ‘literal meaning’ of Scripture, and we can sympathize with the reaction of the ‘Antiochene’ school,”[1] which was that “Origen’s concern for readers, rather than authors, and the ‘spiritual’ meaning of the biblical text led to the text’s too easily becoming a mirror of the interpreter’s or reader’s concerns. We prefer, wrote Diodore, ‘the historical understanding of the text rather than the allegorical.’”[2] [3] Like Diodore, Bible students today should prefer the “historical” method. The fear of the “Antiochene” school is realized today in a culture that embraces not only allegorical but “reader response” methodologies. Unless one is committed to a consistent, historical-grammatical hermeneutic, the text loses all objectivity. This is not an option for Evangelicals. As Dr. Thomas Howe notes:
Evangelicals cling to the possibility of a correct interpretation because intuitively we all know that there is absolute truth that is universally valid. Although the fact of conflicting interpretations is part of the history of interpretation, this does not indicate that objectivity is not possible. Not only is it the case that there are correct interpretations, but on the basis of this it is possible to adjudicate between interpretations.”[4]
If one embraces a figurative/allegorical method, one forsakes the ability to speak objectively about what the Bible says. The only way in which a dialogue can take place and be effective is if the historical-grammatical hermeneutic is used consistently.
Filling in the Puzzle
Doctors Bamidele and Oladejo, in their work “Matthew 24 and Its Relevance to the Parousia,” show that “there are two major positions on the eschatological interpretation of Matthew 24, namely preterism and futurism.”[5] Having eliminated the figurative approach as an appropriate method of biblical interpretation, preterism may be excluded as a plausible theory. As Dr. Paul Benware notes regarding the cosmic disturbance Scriptures in Matthew 24:29-31, this is “a difficult portion for the preterists who admit that no such cosmic signs took place at the destruction of Jerusalem.”[6] Without “spiritualizing” this passage or positing that it was an unseen event, the preterist cannot exegete this passage and remain true to the preterist position. This leaves only the futurist position with which we can hope to understand the words of Jesus recorded here in Matthew.
Now that there is only one remaining position (futurist) and one acceptable hermeneutic (historical-grammatical), this work can proceed to the main topic. Dr. Charles Ryrie has claimed that “pretribulationism has been a regular feature of classic dispensational premillennialism”[7] and that “classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.”[8] Benware echoes Dr. Ryrie saying, “the pretribulational rapture view seems to be the strongest and the one most consistent with a literal hermeneutic.”[9] Dr. Charles Cooper, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and former professor at Moody Bible Institute, disagrees. Cooper, who now is the director of the Prewrath Resource Institute, still holds to a literal hermeneutic, but advises that “only after identifying the best possible understanding of what the text means should we attempt to explain to whom (or for whom) that meaning applies.”[10] Benware insists that in Matthew 24, Jesus “is not speaking about the Church. Jesus speaks of ‘you’ and ‘your’ some twenty times in 23:34-24:15. In context, these words refer to Israel. . . .”[11] Regarding Matthew 29-31 specifically, Benware labels this as referring to “the second coming of Christ.”[12] Cooper, however, concludes “that the elect of Matthew 24 represent a generation of Jewish and Gentile members of Christ’s bride. In light of Matthew 24:22, we understand the Lord to mean that God’s desire to ensure that some of His elect will live to see the Son of Man coming on the clouds will be fulfilled literally as our Lord promised.”[13]
What is presented here are two men who represent two eschatological positions. They both take the Bible literally, and yet still come to different conclusions regarding the intended audience of this passage of Scripture as well as what event is taking place in Matthew 24:29-31. How can this disagreement be adjudicated? One must compare Scripture with Scripture.
The Patterns Confirm the Fit
Sometimes in a puzzle, two pieces will fit together, but that does not mean that they are in the correct place. One will know by the pattern of colors that make up the picture. In like manner, one can turn to other Scripture to see if the patterns of one’s biblical interpretation “fit” not just in placement, but also in context. The pretribulation (pretrib) position is that the Church is not in view in Matthew 24 and that the cosmic event in verses 29-31 is the second coming of Christ. The pre-wrath position is that the Church is in view and the cosmic event is the rapture of the Church. To limit the scope of this paper, this argument will be limited to Matthew 24:29-31, the cosmic event. In these verses, one reads:
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matt. 24:29-31).[14]
In order to determine if this is the rapture or the second coming, one must compare other related Scriptures. In this case, there are at least nine other Scriptures that discuss either the sun being darkened and/or the moon not shining (or looking like blood). There are others, but these can be ruled out as not pertaining to this type of cosmic event.[15] These nine are Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; Ezekiel 32:6-8; Joel 2:10, 30-31; 3:15-16; Mark 13:24; Acts 2:20; and Revelation 6:12. Dr. G. K. Beale says these passages are “stock-in-trade OT imagery for the dissolution of the cosmos.”[16] In his opinion, “the likelihood is that the portrayal is figurative, since five of the determinative OT background passages mentioned above refer to the historical end of a sinful nation’s existence occurring through divine judgment, in which God conducts holy war by employing one nation to defeat another in war.”[17] Beale does concede that “Isaiah 24 and Joel 3:15-16 may concern the final, universal judgment, although the two portrayals could be literal or figurative.”[18] If one accepts Beale’s understanding that this event is just Old Testament (OT) language for kingdoms being overthrown, one still must ask which kingdom Jesus is discussing in Matthew 24?
Both positions can agree that Jesus is talking about the whole world with language such as “all the tribes of the earth” (Matt. 24:30) and “they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Benware agrees, saying, “this will be an event witnessed by all mankind—believers and unbelievers alike.”[19] Besides the parallel verses found in Mark 13, one finds the same language used in Acts 2 and Revelation 6. In Acts, Peter is quoting the prophet Joel as his cosmic event language relates to the event they were experiencing at Pentecost. It is in Revelation 6 where one again finds this same language, but the important question is does it have the same purpose as Matthew 24? Here one reads:
When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
Again, one sees a warning to the whole earth just as in Matthew 24. This is not the only commonality between Matthew 24 and Revelation 6; see the figure below.
If one includes Isaiah 24 and Joel 3 as universal judgements, as Beale allows, along with Matthew 24 and Revelation 6, one must conclude these are speaking of one event. Benware, speaking on the Day of the Lord, declares, “there can be only one unparalleled time of trouble, which suggests that we are looking at the same time frame.”[20] This author agrees with his logic; there can be only one cosmic event which announces the final universal judgement. So that still leaves the question of when will these Scriptures come to pass?
The only passage that exegetically can be placed on an eschatological timeline is Revelation 6. Both pretrib and pre-wrath agree that this event is around the mid-point of the seventieth week of Daniel; this is evidenced by Beware who says the sixth seal “may introduce the final three and a half-years—the great tribulation.”[21] This creates a problem for the pretrib view. If Matthew 24:29-31 and the sixth seal are the same event, then either Jesus’ physical return to Earth takes place prior to the end of the seventieth week, or the rapture takes place sometime after the mid-point of the seventieth week. This is the conclusion that Dr. Gleason Archer came to saying, “the Olivet discourse seems therefore to make it clear that there will be a preliminary phase of the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21) of great intensity and resulting in great slaughter of the saints (verse 22) prior to (cf. verse 24) the sending forth of the angels to gather all believers together for the Parousia, i.e. the rapture.”[22] If one is to continue believing that Matthew 24:29-31 is not the rapture but the second coming of Christ, one must explain and defend two world-wide, cosmic events that kick off universal judgment. The consistent, literal hermeneutic is to read these two passages as describing the same future, literal event that will come to pass at some point in the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week.
Stepping Back to See the Big Picture
When one steps back and looks at the picture that has been assembled here, one will see that the pieces fit both contextually and grammatically, at least as far as it is concerned within this small part of the overall picture. The argument presented here has purposely been presented in a vacuum, meaning this author did not try to connect this portion to the rest of theology or even other eschatological issues. This is for two reasons. The first is to limit the scope of the subject. The second is to allow the Scriptures to speak without being obscured by the many underlying issues that pervade this issue. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong may all believers pray together, Maranatha!
[1]Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 107.
[2]Ibid., 109. Emphasis in original.
[3]Dimitri Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible: A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis (New York: Paulist, 1989), p. 12, quoted in Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 109.
[4]Thomas Howe, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (2015), 323.
[5]Olalekan Olusegun Bamidele and Olusayo B. Oladejo, “Matthew 24 and Its Relevance to the Parousia,” Journal of Biblical Theology 1, no. 4 (March 2016): 146.
[6]Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), 181.
[7]Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 148, Kindle.
[10]Charles Cooper, God’s Elect and the Great Tribulation: An Interpretation of Matthew 24:1-31 and Daniel 9 (Bellefonte, PA: Strong Tower Publishing, 2008), 6.
[14]All Bible references are taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted.
[15]Ecclesiastes 12:2 has the sun, moon, or stars darkened, but related to man’s death. Luke 23:45 speaks of the sun being darkened at Christ’s death. Revelation 8:12 has the sun, moon, and stars effected by the fourth trumpet, but no other signs such as the Son of Man coming. Revelation 9:2 also has the sun darkened due to the smoke from the pit after the fifth trumpet, again not similar to the cosmic event noted in Matthew.
[16]G. K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 396.
[20]Ibid., 279.
[21]Ibid., 308.
[22]Gleason L. Archer, “Jesus is coming again: Midtribulation,” Christian Life, May 1974, 68. Emphasis in original.