CHAPTER ONE
This century has seen two devastating World Wars. But there is a conflict looming on the horizon which will make those seem trivial. The coming war will not be limited to earth; it will literally reach into the heavens. There Michael and his angels will wage war against Satan and his followers. Then they will cast the devil and his angels out of heaven, throwing them down to the earth. "Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that his time is short" (Revelation 12:12).
Following this humiliating eviction from heaven, Satan's first action will be persecuting the "woman who gave birth to the male child." We interpret this to mean Israel and the Jewish people. This persecution will prove unsuccessful, however, as the Lord will miraculously deliver the woman. Enraged over this, Satan will proceed "to make war with the rest of her [the woman's] offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 12:17).
As part of this program of persecution, Satan empowers a man to rule over the entire earth. He is the "beast" of Revelation 13, also known as the Antichrist. Because he comes "in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders," the nations will be powerless to resist. For this reason, they will promptly surrender all authority to him. "And they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?'" (Revelation 13:4). In fact, everyone will worship him—that is, everyone except those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. Unfortunately, he will use the power he has gained to persecute those who will not worship him. "It was given to him [the beast] to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7).
If anything should catch the attention of this present generation of believers, it is the prospect of persecution at the hands of Satan and his Antichrist. Concerning the seriousness of these perils, the Lord said, "If anyone has ears, let him hear" (Revelation 13:9). Yet, many in the church have no regard for this message. No doubt, this is largely due to the widespread belief that the church will be removed before Antichrist comes to power. We are referring to the doctrine of the pre-tribulation (pre-Trib) rapture. According to this doctrine, the Lord will come secretly for His church prior to the Tribulation. Then, seven years later, at the end of the Tribulation, He will come publicly to judge the world. Now, if this doctrine is true, believers have little reason to be concerned over the coming Tribulation. After all, they won't be here. And if they won't be here, it follows there is nothing to be gained in preparing for the afflictions prophesied for those days.
But for the sake of argument, we ask you to consider the consequences for multitudes of pre-Trib believers—should that theory prove false. What will be their response when Antichrist begins to "make war with the saints and to overcome them?" Will they be among those who "come off victorious from the beast?" Will they be counted among those who overcome the devil "because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony" and the fact that "they did not love their life even to death?"
Considering what is at stake, it is crucial that the Biblical basis of the pre-Trib rapture be examined carefully and thoroughly. If the theory is correct, and the church is, in fact, excused from the Tribulation, well and good. We will all praise God from heaven even as the events of the Tribulation unfold on earth. But if that is not the case, if the pre-Trib rapture theory is false, it is imperative that we follow a different course than the one we are now pursuing. If Christians are expected to remain faithful in the face of worldwide persecution, there is much to be done. Attitudes toward suffering must be changed; believers must be equipped to endure Tribulation hardships as good soldiers of Christ; instruction must be given on how the Lord would have us overcome Satan and his Antichrist. With these things in mind, we begin an examination of the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation rapture.
For the purpose of our examination, we take for granted that during the nearly two centuries since the pre-Trib position first appeared, its adherents have had ample time to develop their arguments. In addition, we assume the 14 reasons compiled by LaHaye are an adequate representation of all known pre-Trib arguments. (In other words, we trust he didn't overlook anything.) That being said, our plan is simple: We will evaluate the pre-Trib rapture based on the merits of these 14 reasons. If they are valid, we can assume the pre-Trib rapture is a genuine Biblical doctrine. But if they are not, it follows that the pre-Trib rapture is not Biblical, which means it plays no part in the Lord's plans. "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).
How should the absence of an explicit pre-Trib text affect our inquiry? For one thing, it should raise the evidentiary standard for the 14 arguments. These arguments are not being offered to confirm direct evidence—they are being offered in place of direct evidence. Moreover, these arguments are the only evidence pre-Tribulationists have to offer. So, obviously, if they can't hold up under scrutiny, neither can the pre-Trib rapture. For these reasons we believe the requirements for evidence should be exacting. With this in mind, we begin an analysis of the 14 major pre-Trib arguments.
Pre-Trib Argument: The pre-Trib view provides the most logical fit.
Pre-Tribulationists contend there is no single Bible passage outlining the order of end time events. So, like a jigsaw puzzle, the details must be pieced together from various passages. They are convinced their position provides the most logical fit for all the Second Coming passages.
Response. This claim, it would seem, is only true if you factor in certain pre-Trib assumptions. To illustrate, consider the status of one particular group mentioned in the Bible. Despite terrible persecution, they "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." From that description, most would reasonably assume these are members of Christ's body, the church. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.) That conclusion, however, would present a huge problem for pre-Tribulationists. Why? Because they hold the church was raptured in Revelation 4:1. But this group is not mentioned until Chapter 12. That means pre- Tribbers are forced to make a painful choice. Either (1) they admit the church is not raptured before Chapter 12, meaning it goes through at least part of the Tribulation, or (2) they find some way to exclude these believers from the church. Needless to say, they opt for the latter.
How is this "exclusion" accomplished? The answer is, through a highly creative pre-Trib assumption. They assume that, though the faith of these believers is genuine, there is still one thing they do not have—the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! Hal Lindsey writes, "He [the Holy Spirit] will relate to believers as He did during Old Testament times. He will regenerate the human spirits of those who accept the Messiah, but He will indwell and empower only those whom God has chosen for special service."4
There, my friends, is the pre-Trib solution! Simply allege that most of those who come to faith during the Tribulation will not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That means they cannot possibly be part of the church since, according to Romans 8:9, those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Him. So, where the plain reading of Revelation 12:17 might have submarined the entire pre-Trib system, thanks to this creative assumption, the troublesome passage now "fits" pre-Trib beliefs.
There is, of course, a glaring weakness in this explanation—it is simply not Biblical. No where does Scripture suggest the Holy Spirit will operate differently during the Tribulation, or for that matter, that people will be regenerated (born again) in a manner different than they are now. That reduces this entire explanation to a logical fallacy known as petito principii or begging the question. It is called that because it begs (assumes) the very thing it is trying to prove. And while worthless as an argument, it does illustrate the kind of reasoning pre-Tribulationists must use to establish their view as the "most logical fit" of all Second Coming passages.
Pre-Trib Argument: The Pre-Trib view is based on the literal approach of interpreting Scripture.
To say pre-Tribulationists are confident as to the truth of their interpretations is an understatement. No doubt, much of that confidence can be attributed to their strong reliance on the literal approach to the Scriptures. That approach is sometimes called the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation. That means, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at it's primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."5 In LaHaye's opinion, taking the Scriptures literally will naturally lead to a pre-Trib understanding of the prophetic Scriptures.6
Response. The implication is that the literal approach is more or less the exclusive domain of the pre-Trib camp. At least ten times in his book, LaHaye intimates that those who oppose pre- Tribulationalism do so because they have abandoned the literal approach. Over and over, pre- Tribbers charge spiritualization by opponents. Walvoord even refers to the "fact that spiritualization of Scripture goes hand in hand with denial of the pretribulation rapture."7 Unfortunately, this charge has been leveled so often that there is no longer any meaningful debate over Second Coming passages.
It would seem that the purpose of this appeal to literalism is not so much to defend the pre-Trib position as it is to attack those who oppose it. This recurring charge of spiritualization by pre- Tribulationists brings to mind a question from the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your eye?" (Matthew 7:3). We say that because, examining prophetic passages, we find it is the pre-Trib camp which continuously engages in spiritualization. For instance, consider the treatment of Revelation 4:1. This, of course, is the verse where pre-Tribbers contend the rapture occurs. LaHaye freely admits the plain reading of the passage does not support a pre-Trib rapture teaching, yet that does not dissuade him from declaring it just the same. He writes, "The Rapture of the church is not explicitly taught in Revelation 4 but definitely appears here chronologically at the end of the church age and before the Tribulation" (italics added).8 In other words, though this passage does not mention the rapture, does not mention the Tribulation, and does not mention the church, LaHaye has no qualms about reading these items into it. My friend, if that is not spiritualizing the plain reading of Scripture, nothing is!
Pre-Tribulationists do well to champion the literal approach of interpretation. It is, generally speaking, the most profitable way to understand prophecy. We grant that in most areas pre-Tribbers do seek to interpret Scripture literally. But when it comes to Second Coming passages, one is hard pressed to find an instance where the plain reading of the verses in question is used. As these 14 arguments are examined, it will become apparent that the pre-Trib approach is anything but literal.
Conclusion
In the analysis of pre-Trib arguments we are applying the Berean approach.
That means, the only standard is the Scriptures. So, the question is this:
Does the Bible teach or support this particular argument? To be fair, Reason
#1 was never intended as a Scriptural argument, so it's not possible to
evaluate it based on specific passages in the Bible. But can we say the
pre-Trib view relies on the plain, literal meaning of Scripture wherever
possible? Frankly, that has not been the case in the passages examined
thus far. Finally, does it appear that pre-Tribulationists have proved
their view is the most logical fit for all the Second Coming passages?
As yet, we have seen no evidence that this is the case. So, at this point,
Reason #1 for being a pre-Tribulationist cannot be considered more than
an unsubstantiated claim.
Notes on Chapter 1.
Last Updated December 16, 1997 by Larry Simmons