Before God's Wrath: Revised and Expanded Edition

Acknowledgements

Foreword, by Gary Vaterlaus 

Questions and Answers About the Prewrath Rapture

Introduction 

1. Why the Timing Matters

2. What the Bible Says About the Rapture

3. Faulty Foundations of Pretrib

4. When Does God’s Wrath Begin?

5. Will the Church Endure the Great Tribulation?

6. What About Imminence?

7. “He Who Restrains” (or Will the Church See the Antichrist?)

8. “Kept From the Hour” 

9. Where Does Pretrib Come From?

10. Matthew 24, Revelation 6, and Daniel 11, 12: The Same Events in the Same Order

11. The Last Trump(et)

12. Dry Bones Live

13. Every Eye Will See

14. Don’t Be Fooled

15. God Wouldn’t Do That

16. Are the Letters to the Churches for Us Today?

17. Does Jesus Come Twice?

18. Is Revelation Consecutive?

19. Does God Create Evil? 

20. What’s the Rush? 

21. Signs of the Times: End-Times Prophecy Fulfilled in This Generation

22. One Final Thought 

Epilogue

A. Closer Look at the Day of the Lord 

B. Response to Maranatha! O Lord Come! by Renald Showers

C. More Detailed Look at “Amad” 

D. Response to The Rapture Question: Revised and Expanded Edition, by John Walvoord, 321

E. Do Parousia, Apokalypsis, and Epiphany Require Different Comings? [Oswald T. Allis]

F. What the Church Fathers Taught About the Church And the Coming of the Antichrist

[Gary Vaterlaus]

Pretrib vs. Prewrath Timing of the Rapture 

Four-Way Juncture 

Daniel’s 70 Weeks Prophecy

Daniel’s 70th Week (1) 

Defining the Great Tribulation

Daniel’s 70th Week (2)

God’s Passive and Active Will

Comparison of “Your Wrath Has Come”

Defining God’s Wrath

Comparison of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6

Daniel’s 70th Week (3)

Comparison of Daniel 11:31–35 and Matthew 24

Graphical Comparison of Matthew 24, Revelation 6, 7

Side-By-Side Comparison of Matthew 24, Revelation 6

Comparison of Matthew 24, Revelation 6, Daniel 11, 12

Characteristics of the Rapture

Comparison of the Four Winds in Matthew 24, Revelation 6, and Ezekiel 37

Three Overview Interpretations of Revelation

Illustration of the Scroll of Revelation 5

Witnesses’ 1260 Days as a Textual Indicator

Textual Outline of the Structure of Revelation

Graphic Outline of the Structure of Revelation

Textual Indicators That Confirm Consecutive Order

Overview Interpretation of Revelation 

Significance of the Use of Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls as Agents of Judgment in Revelation

Comparison of Judgments in Egypt to Judgments in Revelation

The Gospel Reaching All Nations Through the Jesus Film

Rise of “Killer” Earthquakes 

Explosion in the World’s Population 

Pretrib and Prewrath Approaches to “the Day of the Lord”

For most of my life, I took the pretrib rapture for granted. Jesus was coming back at any moment. I, my family, and my friends would be swept into the clouds silently and without warning, leaving the world wondering where millions of those crazy Christians went. I heard this “any moment” theory from the pulpits, on the television and the radio, and in the books I was reading. From what I could tell, no one around me questioned whether it was true. Then one day as I was reading Matthew 24, commonly called the Olivet Discourse, I realized that what I had been taught didn’t match what I saw in the Bible. How could this be? How could a teaching so fundamental to Christian living be so different from what I saw in the scriptures?

So I began to investigate. I re-read the gospels. I re-read 1 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. I re-read 1 Peter and Revelation. I saw the rapture, all right, but I didn’t see it pretribulationally. And I certainly didn’t see the “any moment” timing that my church was teaching. I began to ask around, probing the thoughts of friends and family who were also students of the Bible. I was surprised to discover that many of them didn’t think that what they were being taught matched what they read in the Bible either. As a firm believer in sola scriptura, this alarmed me, and studying this issue became the driving factor in my life for the next three years.

During the early part of this period, I did very little studying as to why so many people believed in the pretrib rapture. I just wanted to know what the Bible actually taught. As a professional business writer, I had written thousands of articles, market research studies, and other business documents, so I attacked this question the same way I would any other project, researching thoroughly and methodically, reserving judgment until all the facts had been collected. Because I was concerned only with the facts, I did not start with commentaries or other writings that might bias me toward one conclusion or another. I spent nearly all of my time studying the Bible itself, with Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and its dictionaries of Greek and Hebrew words at my side. To my surprise, no matter what premise or scripture I started from, I ended with the same conclusion. This conclusion arose clearly, repeatedly, and without contradiction. And it wasn’t pretribulational.

At that point, I began reading Marvin Rosenthal’s The Pre- Wrath Rapture of the Church. This excellent book, published in 1990, opened my eyes to the fact that there was already a base of scholarly support for my growing understanding of the scriptures. This led me to the writings of Robert Van Kampen, author of The Sign and The Rapture Question Answered: Plain and Simple. Although these authors’ roads to the timing of the rapture differed from mine, their conclusions were the same. They also gave me a label for the timing I saw in the Bible: prewrath.

During my first two years of study, I kept my ears and eyes open for information on the pretrib teaching. I asked a lot of questions, learning what I could about this doctrine’s scriptural foundations. In popular treatments of this subject, I continued to find little or none. It wasn’t until my third year of study, after my conclusions had been finalized, that I began reading studies by academic pretrib scholars. This became an interesting challenge for me. Could my understanding of the scriptures stand in light of the scholarship of these great men of God? Could the scholarship of these respected theologians really be wrong?

First, I discovered that the pretrib rapture is a newcomer on the scene. I had heard Marvin Rosenthal say it, but now I heard pretrib scholars say it, too. Contrary to the common belief that the early church believed in a pretribulation rapture, the pretrib doctrine, with its “two-stage” return of Christ (a spiritual or “partial” return at the rapture, and a physical, bodily return at Armageddon), was developed by John Darby around 1830. It was adopted as a mainstream teaching only after it appeared in the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Thus, prewrath is not a reading of scripture in conflict with theologians for the last 2,000 years. It is in conflict only with some theologians for the last 180 years.

Nor is the prewrath teaching new. Dr. Renald Showers, who holds to the pretrib position, has written that prewrath is “a variation of the midtribulation rapture and therefore is not actually new but a revision of an already existing position.”1 I would actually argue that most of the proof texts for the prewrath position agree with an even older position, the posttribulation position. Although prewrath’s conclusions about the timing are different (that the rapture will occur after the midpoint of the “Tribulation period” but before the outpouring of God’s wrath, rather than at the end, as held by posttribulationism), the scholarship supporting the interpretations of many passages is similar. Thus, if the test of time is to be used as the standard by which credibility is judged, it is not the prewrath position but pretrib that has the burden of proof.2

I also discovered that my non-pretrib stance shares company with many classic Bible scholars, including John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Knox, John Hus, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, John Wycliffe, John Bunyan, and, most importantly, the Apostle Paul. In fact, with the exception of one brief reference in the fifth century, pretrib’s belief in a two-stage return of Christ did not surface until after the first 1,800 years of church history.3

The more I studied, the more amazed I became, first at the lack of evidence for the pretrib position; then, at pretrib scholars’ admission of such. Even top scholars like John Walvoord admit that there are no direct scriptural references for this position. In fact, Walvoord calls any attempts to find them “strained.”4 In contrast, the prewrath timing is based on direct scriptural references—lots of them. No straining necessary.

Finally, I discovered that many of the “radical” ideas I had formed were neither radical nor new. Most have been presented and argued by scholars for years. There was nothing new, for example, in my discovery that the rapture is the trigger event that ushers in the Day of the Lord. This is a view held by John Walvoord. There is nothing new in my suggestion that the events described in the Olivet Discourse are the same as the seals in Revelation. This is a view held by Renald Showers. There is nothing new in my contention that the rapture can be found in Matt. 24:31. This is a view held by Robert Gundry. Many scholars, of course, do not agree with me or even with one another. Walvoord and Showers, for example, disagree with many fellow pretrib scholars; the two men often disagree with one another; and both disagree with Gundry.

There are three things about the prewrath position, however, that are relatively new. First is the formal coining of the term “prewrath.”5

Second is this position’s systematic placement of the rapture in the order of end-times events (this is not date-setting, since the order of events is not the same as the time). Third, and most important, is that this systematic presentation allows the scriptures to be read in their straightforward common sense meanings. With other timings of the rapture, many scriptures have to be “tweaked” or allegorized to fit into an eschatological (end-times) framework. This tweaking varies from author to author. If the entirety of scripture could be described as Cinderella’s glass slipper, the pretrib doctrine is a foot that is just a little too small and the posttrib and midtrib doctrines are feet that are just a little too big. But the prewrath timing is the foot that fits the glass slipper just right.

Now that is something new.

Prewrath, however, is not a new interpretation of scripture. The truth has been there since the completion of the New Testament canon, and I am convinced that many Christians already know it, even if they have not taken the time to research it themselves. Writes Robert Van Kampen: "The prewrath position is not a 20th century position. It was the position of Christ. It was the position of Paul. It was the position of Peter. It was the position of John. Even our Lord’s revelation to Daniel refers directly to it….It was also the position of the early church fathers, including the Didache, The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles, which is perhaps the oldest commentary on the Olivet Discourse in existence today.”6

So if prewrath is right, how can so many people be wrong? There are many periods in church history in which the dominant teaching was later shown to be in error. In the fourth century, for example, the Greek Church threw out the book of Revelation as noncannonical, and it stayed out for several centuries, only later to be restored. In the 16th century, Martin Luther rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church by asserting that the Bible should be the only source of doctrine. He was branded a heretic and started the Protestant Reformation. In the early 20th century, the dominant millennial theology was postmillennialism (the idea that the Kingdom of God will not be ushered in by the Second Coming of Christ but by the hand of man through the Church), but this was largely shattered by the horrors of World War I and World War II. To suggest that the current fad of pretribulationism is wrong is not heresy. If pretribulationism is wrong, it would not be the first time that a prominent church teaching was in error.

But with so little scriptural support, what is the foundation of pretribulationism that has caused it to sweep through 20th century evangelical churches? At its core, I believe it is preference. This is because despite the intensity with which this position is defended and the confidence with which it is promoted, it is impossible to find in the Bible itself. In my experience talking with most Christians who hold the pretrib position, they do so because it is what they have been taught, and when asked why they continue to believe it, even when presented with scriptural evidence of its error, most defend their beliefs based on why God wouldn’t put us through any part of the “Tribulation,” not when scripture says the rapture ought to be.

As I did the research for this book, I found myself swimming against the tide. Many took offense to the fact that I would question the teaching of some of today’s most highly esteemed scholars, not to mention thousands of churches, book authors, and television personalities. For this reason, the question of whether the average believer can be expected to reach a reasonable conclusion about the rapture became extremely important to me.

From a pretrib perspective, the answer to this question is “no.” Pretribulationism requires complex analyses of Greek and Hebrew grammar from the original texts linked to the use of dispensational theology, a method of biblical interpretation taught in seminaries. Therefore, defense of the pretrib doctrine requires a level of education not available to the average believer. This, in itself, is a strong argument against this position. The Bible says that, with diligent study, all believers can and should discern all of the truth of scripture, which includes the timing of the rapture. Addressing all believers, 1 John 2:27 says: “You do not need that anyone teach you, but as the same anointing [of the Holy Spirit] teaches you concerning all things.” Also, in 2 Tim. 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Paul isn’t telling Timothy that the meaning of God’s Word is hidden between the lines for only scholars to find. Rather, he is suggesting that with diligence, all believers can understand the truths that God is communicating.

Many Christians, however, are frightened by in-depth Bible study, saying, “I don’t have the education to discern the deep truths of scripture.” To these I would ask, “To whom was the Bible written?” Jesus’ followers were a motley crew of fishermen, prostitutes, and tax collectors. They were the lost, the hurting, the downcast of society. They are those the late singer and songwriter Rich Mullins described as “the ragamuffin band.” In fact, to those of great education, Jesus offered this warning: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes” (Matt. 11:25). I am a strong proponent of in-depth study of the Bible. However, when a biblical interpretation can only be derived from specialized academic studies, and results in a teaching that does not agree with the plain meaning of the text, I believe this warning is well taken.7

In contrast, the prewrath position is straightforward, biblically consistent, and readily available for study in hundreds of direct scriptural references. This evidence is so abundant, in fact, that when I began to share the results of my investigation with others, I did not find myself trying to convince them of some new concept. I heard many exclaim, “That’s what I thought! I just didn’t know who to ask.” This reinforces my belief that the study of the rapture is not something that should intimidate Christians. The ability to evaluate truth from error is within the grasp of every true believer.

With these thoughts in mind, I ask readers to give the prewrath view a fair hearing. At the same time, I also ask readers to test everything against scripture. For Paul commands us, “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). While this scripture applies to all areas of our lives, Paul was specifically talking about the return of Christ and the rapture of the Church. In other words, it is the responsibility of every Christian to test all of the teachings of men, whether friends, family, pastors,  or television preachers, even authors like me, against God’s infallible Word. I believe that, if we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us, we will eventually come to knowledge of the truth.

For God promises, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5).

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

Amen.

1 Maranatha! Our Lord Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church (Friends of Israel Gospel Ministries, 1995), p. 13.

2 John Walvoord has argued vehemently against this assertion, claiming that modern posttribulationism, which is both posttribulational and premillennial, is actually younger than pretrib. I would disagree on the basis that, while many of the modern proof texts for the posttrib position are new, the position itself is not. Even Walvoord admits that many of the church fathers were posttribulational, and while he would like to trace the roots of pretribulationism to the church fathers, too, he can do so only by tying the biblical concept of expectancy to an “any moment” event. The fact that many church fathers believed in both imminence and posttribulationism, as Walvoord concedes, is a strong argument against his own interpretation.

3 The claim that Ephraem the Syrian’s sermon supports a pretrib rapture is a claim made by pretribulationists, but upon examination of the sermon, it actually supports a posttribulational rapture position. URLs are always changing, but text of the full sermon can be located by doing an Internet search using terms like “Ephraem” or “Pseudo-Ephraem” and “sermon.”

4 John Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition

(Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 182.

5 In recent years, the popularity of the prewrath teaching has led some to mistakenly apply the term to the seventh trumpet rapture, which places the rapture at the seventh trumpet, just before the bowls of God’s wrath. These are different positions, with different timing and exegesis. The seventh trumpet rapture, which is really a posttribulational position, should not be included as part of classic prewrath.

5 In recent years, the popularity of the prewrath teaching has led some to mistakenly apply the term to the seventh trumpet rapture, which places the rapture at the seventh trumpet, just before the bowls of God’s wrath. These are different positions, with different timing and exegesis. The seventh trumpet rapture, which is really a posttribulational position, should not be included as part of classic prewrath.

6 Robert Van Kampen, The Rapture Question Answered: Plain and Simple (Fleming H. Revell, 1997), p. 206.7 I am not suggesting that pretrib scholars are deliberately twisting the common sense meaning of the text. After doing an in-depth study of pretrib scholarship, I understand how, by reading the scriptures with a pre-existing bias, one might overlook even the plainest meaning. Specialized translations of Greek and Hebrew words can give entire passages new meanings, and while these meanings often conflict with other passages, after enough years of scholarship, these passages have been, in the words of John Walvoord, “harmonized” with the pretrib view.