CHAPTER TEN
The first to present his case seems right, til another comes forward to question him. (Proverbs 18:17)
"This view most clearly fits the flow of the Book of the Revelation." 1
For the pre-Trib view to fit the Revelation narrative, only one thing is needed. That is, there must be a passage placing the rapture before the events described in Chapter 6, which is generally considered the beginning of the Tribulation. According to pre-Tribulationists, there is such a passage; it is Revelation 4:1-2. If, in fact, that text can be established as a rapture text, it is safe to say that pre-Tribulationists will have carried the day. Not only will they have (at long last) established two future Comings, but they will also have made their case that the rapture precedes the Tribulation. But what is the evidence that Revelation 4 contains a reference to the rapture?
Before we look at the arguments, it might be helpful to have the passage before us. To set the stage, the Apostle John received a vision while on the Isle of Patmos. In that vision, he was told by the Lord to write concerning three kinds of things. "Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things." (Revelation 1:19). No doubt, the things he had seen had to do with the vision of the glorified Lord, Jesus. But what was meant by the things which are? This probably referred to the current condition of the churches. In the vision, the Lord directed John to record messages to seven different churches. In these messages, He commended the churches for what they were doing right and strongly warned them in areas they were falling short.
That brings us to the things which shall take place after these things. To properly grasp this part, it was apparently necessary that John view the events from a heavenly perspective. That is why we read, "After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me said, 'Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.' Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne." (Revelation 4:1-2).
Because of the trumpet reference, many think this passage is at least an allusion to the rapture. "...for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." (I Corinthains 15:52). It should be pointed out, however, that there is no trumpet in Revelation 4; there is only a voice—a voice which was "like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me." So, what are the remaining arguments for interpreting John's vision as a "rapture event" 2
LaHaye says that, when taken literally, "the Book of Revelation is a pre-Tribulational book." 3 Perhaps you are wondering, what does this statement have to do with establishing the rapture in 4:1-2? That can best be answered by converting it to a formal argument:
This, of course, is an example of begging the question. The premise that the Book of the Revelation is a pre-Tribulational book cannot be proven; it is merely a pre-Trib assumption. Therefore, the conclusion is logically unsound.
Pre-Tribulationists freely admit the rapture is not mentioned in Revelation 4:1-2. Nevertheless, they insist that is when it occurs. "The Rapture of the Church is not explicitly taught in Revelation 4 but it definitely appears here chronologically at the end of the church age and before the Tribulation." 4 It seems the basis for this assertion is other rapture texts. LaHaye writes, "Revelation 4:1-2 by itself would never unlock the mystery of the rapture, but since the event is revealed in other passages, one may appropriately identify John's call up to heaven as a Rapture event that unfolds before the Tribulation period." 5 In other words, it is suggested that, based on other rapture texts, we can conclude that when John was called up to heaven, he was raptured. This conclusion is then used to argue that the church will likewise be raptured before the Tribulation. LaHaye writes, "John is at least representative of the church when he is raptured to be with Christ in the air while the people still living on earth proceed to the Tribulation period." 6 (Italics added). Here is the formal argument:
This argument is fraught with problems. For one thing, the whole approach flies in the face of the pre-Trib standard of consistent literalism. Marvin Rosenthal puts it this way, "That kind of interpretation dishonors a literal and grammatical approach to the Scriptures. To make John's being caught up into heaven mean the church is raptured at that time is tantamount to adopting Origen's allegory method of interpretation—an approach which premillennarians universally shun in other instances." 7
Even worse though, it can easily be shown that John was not raptured in Revelation 4! Despite claims to the contrary, there are no other Bible texts which suggest John's vision was a "rapture event." In fact, key rapture passages seem to dispute that interpretation. From I Corinthians 15:53 we know that when believers are raptured, they become immortal; yet, John was still mortal. I Thessalonians 4:17 tells us that, at the rapture, believers will go to be with the Lord and will remain with Him always; as we know, John returned to earth alone. Clearly, the claim that John was raptured is false. For that reason, the conclusion which flows from it—that the church will also be raptured prior to the Tribulation—is completely without merit.
In the final argument, it is said that the rapture must occur in Revelation 4:1-2, simply because it can't be found anywhere else! (So much for relying on the plain reading of Scripture.) LaHaye writes, "If post-Tribs reject Revelation 4:1-2 as a reference to the Rapture, they must explain why the Rapture was not mentioned and where it fits. Since the Revelation is the most detailed sequential prediction of end-time events in the Bible, it is unthinkable that such a joyous event as the Rapture, mentioned in other books of the Bible, would be completely omitted." 8
This argument is replete with complex questions. (i.e., Have you stopped beating your wife?) For instance, by charging "if not 4:1-2, then where," pre-Tribbers are trying lend credence to an unprovable assumption—namely, that the rapture and the Second Coming are two separate events. Once two Comings are established, then (and only then) is it reasonable to debate where those Comings might be located in the Revelation. The challenge issued to post-Tribbers to explain why the rapture is omitted is also a complex question. That is because it has never been established that the rapture is separate from the Second Coming. And, so as long as the Second Coming has not been omitted, it follows that the rapture has not been omitted either.
Without compelling evidence of the rapture in 4:1-2, there is no reason to view the Revelation as a pre-Trib book. And apart from logical fallacies, it cannot be said that the Bible indicates John's vision was a "rapture event." Therefore, Reason # 10 ought to have no bearing on whether one is a pre-Tribulationist.
Notes on Chapter 10.
Last Updated November 10, 1997 by Larry Simmons