CHAPTER TWO
Reviewing all the Biblical information about the Second Coming, pre-Tribbers conclude that many details clash or are contradictory. Their solution for "untangling" them is to suggest not one, but two Comings of our Lord— "one for His church and another for the world."2 These two Comings are said to be seven years apart. According to pre-Trib doctrine, the coming in the air for the church will be secret, while the coming to the earth will be public.3
Regarding this issue, pre-Tribbers are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, they absolutely must show there are two separate Comings. If there is only one Coming, it is a given that it will be the glorious appearance which occurs after the Tribulation. This would leave pre-Tribulationism with all the relevance of the Flat Earth Society. On the other hand, they must also defend themselves against the charge of teaching two Second Comings of Christ. Why? Because that concept is nowhere found in Scripture. In every instance, the Biblical words referring to the Lord's Coming are singular; never are they plural. (There is also no Biblical reference to the rapture as a secret event.)
Concerning the charge that pre-Tribulationism teaches two Comings, LaHaye writes, "I realize some will accuse me of teaching two comings of Christ, but that is untrue."4 No doubt, this denial would be more plausible had he not advanced the idea of two future comings in the preceding paragraph! There he stated, "Only by robbing these passages of their obvious meaning can we ignore the two comings of Christ, one for His church and another for the world"5 (italics added).
Perhaps sensing the futility of denying something so obvious, LaHaye abandons all pretense of defending the charge, abruptly suggesting that two Second Comings might be Biblical anyway! For support, he points to the experience of the Old Testament prophets. "What seemed like one coming turned out to be two events separated by at least two thousand years." From this he reasons, "Why should it be strange that His coming for His bride in blessing and His coming in judgment to the earth be separated by seven years?"6
There are serious problems with this reasoning. For one thing, the premise is not true. The first Coming did not become two events; one event merely followed the other. But even if it were true, the argument itself is a fallacy of accident. That is where you assume something to be an essential property (characteristic) of a subject, even though it is merely accidental to it. Here, it is assumed that an essential property of the first Coming is that it turns into two events, with an interval of time in between. This property is then mistakenly applied to the Second Coming. Thus, it is erroneously suggested that the Second Coming will also turn out to be two events separated by a period of time.
Pre-Trib Argument: The rapture and the Second Coming cannot be the same event.
Pre-Tribulationists believe the details of the Second Coming and the rapture offer such contrasts that they cannot possibly refer to the same event. Walvoord writes, "These contrasts are such as to make any harmony of these two events an impossibility. Those who attempt it must resort to spiritualization of details that clash and avoidance of striking differences in general character."7
Response. By charging spiritualization, Walvoord is implying that these contrasting details are derived from literal interpretations of Scripture. Remember, to spiritualize means to reject or explain away the plain reading of Scripture, replacing it with some symbolic meaning. So, by definition, only a literal interpretation can be spiritualized. Yet, for the 24 so-called clashing details suggested by Walvoord, only one has a corresponding Scriptural reference—and that one is of little use since it is impossible to construct a contrast from a single fact (something like describing the difference between a duck). Nevertheless, we will attempt to determine if there is a Biblical basis for these 12 contrasts. Following that, we will decide whether the supposed contrasts really do demand an interpretation of two future Comings.
"At the time of the Rapture the world is unjudged and continues in sin, while at the Second Coming the world is judged and righteousness is established in the earth."8
Response: The type of argument presented here is called a syllogism. It is made up of two informational statements, called premises, which support or prove a conclusion. For the purpose of analysis, the formal argument for the first contrast would read like this:
Before getting into the formal analysis, let's see if we can intuitively discover why this first contrast is unsound. When we examine either of the Bible's two specific rapture passages (I Corinthians 15:51-53 or I Thessalonians 4:13- 17), we find absolutely no language indicating the world is unjudged after the rapture and that it continues in sin. How, then, do pre-Tribulationists determine there is no judgment at the rapture? Believe it or not, it is a conclusion based solely on an argument from silence. Because the passages do not mention judgment, they assume an absence of judgment. The problem, of course, is that this kind of argument can be used to "prove" anything. For instance, we note that there is also no mention of groundhogs in these rapture passages. Based on that omission, can we conclude the rapture will not occur on groundhog day? Now, let's see what the formal argument looks like:
All this to say, the first contrast has no real Biblical basis. Like tainted evidence in a trial, it should have no bearing on the issue at hand, that is, whether or not the Bible teaches two separate Comings. By way of warning, you will see this kind of so-called "evidence" offered many times as pre-Tribulationists argue their beliefs.
Pre-Trib Contrast #2.
"At the Rapture Satan is not bound, while at the Second Coming Satan is bound and cast into the abyss."9
Response: Again, two sets of Biblical facts are presented which lead to a seemingly logical conclusion: namely, that there must be two different Comings. To be valid, the actual argument should be written like this:
As an aside, we submit that this particular set of contrasts is easy to harmonize. How? Merely by recognizing that the rapture is but the beginning of the Second Coming. After the saints are caught up in the air and joined together with the Lord, they quickly return with Him to earth, where the first order of business is to destroy the armies of Armageddon, and immediately after that, Satan is bound.
Pre-Trib Contrast #3.
"No passage dealing with the resurrection of saints at the Second Coming ever mentions translation of living saints at the same time."10
Response: Here, pre-Tribulationists seek to demonstrate the necessity of two Comings by proving they occur at different times. In the pre-Trib system they are thought to be seven years apart. Once more, there is a serious problem in the method of proof. That is to say, another argument from silence is used to produce still another unsound conclusion. This is the actual formal argument:
Pre-Trib Contrast #4.
"At the time of the Rapture the Mount of Olives is unchanged, while at the Second Coming it divides and a valley is formed to the east of Jerusalem. (Zech. 14:4-5)."11
Response: This contrast is notable in that it is the only one to which Walvoord attaches a Scripture reference. It arises because of a single Second Coming passage which predicts that, on the Lord's return, the Mount of Olives will be split in two (see Zechariah 14). Because no similar statement is found in any of the rapture passages, Walvoord concludes there must be two separate events. But this raises an interesting question: If omission of this one piece of information is a defining characteristic of a rapture passage, what can we say about the scores of Second Coming passages which do not mention the splitting of the Mount of Olives? By this reasoning, each and every one of them would have to be reclassified as a rapture passage!
This argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur (meaning, it does not follow). This type of fallacy occurs when both of the premises are true, but irrelevant. In this case, it is true that the rapture passages do not refer to the Mount of Olives. It is also true that one Second Coming verse actually mentions the splitting of the Mount. These are, however, nothing more than unrelated facts from which no logical conclusion may be drawn.
When all is said and done, it seems more reasonable to accept the Biblical account of one Second Coming, viewing these verses as revealing different aspects of the same event. There is no disharmony in Scripture by suggesting that, after the saints meet the Lord in the air, they return with Him to the Mount of Olives, where they witness the earth-splitting fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy.
Pre-Trib Contrast #5.
"The Rapture is described as imminent, while the Second Coming is preceded by definite signs."12
Response: The doctrine of Imminency is the linchpin of the pre-Trib system. It simply means no signs are required before the rapture can occur. In other words, it could happen at any moment. Suffice to say, this contrast (as well as the doctrine of imminency) is derived in the same manner as those above.
Perhaps at this point, some may wonder whether pre-Trib teachers actually resort to logical fallacies to advance their beliefs. To demonstrate that they do, we offer the following quote by Walvoord, as he seeks to establish the doctrine of imminency. "The prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events. Here [referring to John 14], as in other passages dealing with the coming of Christ for the church, the hope is presented as an imminent hope."13
Did you get that? By pre-Trib logic, because rapture passages contain nothing to preclude imminency, they somehow "prove" imminency! In other words, when pre-Tribulationists claim the Bible describes the rapture as imminent, what they are really saying is—the Bible does not say the rapture is not imminent! How is that for forthright teaching from Scripture? (The Bible also never says the 24 elders around the throne are not retired game show hosts, but that doesn't mean they are.)
Pre-Trib Contrast #6.
"No unfulfilled prophecy stands between the church and the Rapture, while many signs must be fulfilled before the Second Coming."14
Response: This contrast is merely a restatement of one above. In place of the word "imminent" is substituted the characteristic which defines imminency—that no prophesied event needs to occur. No additional comment is necessary.
Pre-Trib Contrast #7.
"At the time of the Rapture the saints meet Christ in the air, while at the second coming Christ returns to the mount of Olives to meet the saints on earth."15
Response: Despite Walvoord's claim that these contrasts could not be harmonized, in the classic rapture passage, I Thessalonians 4, we find a word which goes a long way toward doing just that. Verse 17 says "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." the Greek word for meet has an interesting connotation. From Moulton's Greek Testament Grammar, "It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary."16 The picture is one of the people going out from the city to greet an approaching dignitary and returning with him as part of his entourage. With this in mind, we can easily envision the saints going out to meet the Lord in the air and then returning with Him to the Mount of Olives. LaHaye counters by saying this makes the rapture sound like a yo-yo event. Though he apparently finds that picture offensive, that is precisely how Scripture presents it.
Pre-Trib Contrast #8.
"At the rapture living saints are translated, while no saints are translated in connection with the second coming of Christ to the earth."17
Response: As mentioned above, the Biblical picture seems to be one where the saints return with the Lord to the Mount of Olives very soon after they are caught up in the clouds (translated). By viewing the rapture as the opening act of the prophesied Second Coming, this supposed contrast easily disappears.
Pre-Trib Contrast #9.
"The translation of the church is pictured as a deliverance before the day of wrath, while the Second Coming is followed by the deliverance of these who have believed in Christ during the Tribulation."18
Response: This is an example of a fallacy known as begging the question. It is called that because it assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. In this case, pre-Tribbers are assuming that the seven years of Tribulation and the day of wrath are one in the same. However, as will be shown in Chapter 6, that assumption cannot be proven from Scripture.
Contrast #10.
"The translation of living believers is a truth revealed only in the New Testament, while the Second Coming with its attendant events is a prominent doctrine of both Testaments."19
Response: This argument is another example of a non sequitur (meaning, it does not follow). Again, this type of fallacy occurs when both of the premises are true, but irrelevant. The fact that the translation aspect of the rapture was not revealed until the pages of the New Testament is not surprising. Many Old Testament doctrines were first given partial presentments—we know them as types and foreshadowings—only to be revealed more fully in the New Testament. And, while the translation aspect of the rapture is obviously not developed in the Old Testament, it is wrong to say the rapture itself cannot be found there.
For example, consider the following passage from Isaiah. "It will come about also in that day that a great trumpet will be blown; and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27:13). Just how will all these people scattered outside Israel get to Jerusalem? One possible explanation is the rapture; saints from all over the world will be caught up in the air and then return (with the Lord) to earth at Jerusalem. And regarding the "great trumpet," is it not possible that this is the very trumpet mentioned in I Thessalonians 4:16 and I Corinthians 15:52? But whether these references suggest the rapture or not, the elements of this "contrast" are merely unrelated facts from which no logical conclusion may be drawn.
Contrast #11.
"The rapture concerns only the saved, while the Second Coming deals with both saved and unsaved."20
Response: This contrast is also a non-event. After the saved (both dead and alive) are raised to meet the Lord in the air, they return with the Lord to earth to engage the unsaved in the Battle of Armageddon. Clearly, the rapture will have a direct effect on the unsaved (see Revelation 19:11- 16).
Contrast #12.
"At the Rapture the saints go to heaven, while at the Second Coming to the earth the saints remain on the earth without translation."21
Response: The teaching that Christ takes the saints to heaven at the rapture has less Biblical backing than pre-Tribbers suppose. It is based on a peculiar interpretation of a single passage in John 14, an interpretation which, by the way, cannot be confirmed by any other passage in the Bible. It is the familiar text where Jesus tells His disciples of the many dwelling places in His Father's house. After revealing that He was going there to prepare a place for them, He said, "And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."
As you can see, there is no language in John 14 indicating the Lord returns to heaven immediately after the rapture. All the Lord said was that (1) the saints would be with Him, wherever He is, and (2) a dwelling place will be prepared for them in the Father's house. What's more, this verse is completely silent as to when believers will live in the Father's house. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that spending an eternity in the New Jerusalem would be an adequate fulfillment of the promise. Finally, we find no Scriptural basis for insisting believers will reside in the Father's house during the seven years prior to the Second Coming. In fact, the whole pre-Trib understanding of just when believers reside in the Father's house—seven years in, a thousand years out, then in for eternity—is pure speculation without an ounce of Scriptural support.
Perhaps sensing the weakness of the 12 "contrasts," Walvoord closes his arguments for two Second Comings with a truly bewildering proposition. He writes, "While it is evident that there are some similarities between the two events, these do not prove they are the same."22 From this statement we can infer two things. First, Walvoord realizes he has not proved the case for two future Comings. Otherwise, why seek to cast doubt on evidence for the opposing view? Second, he is suggesting the burden of proof should now rest on those who hold to one Second Coming! Never mind that it is the two future Comings of pre-Tribulationalism which is the exception to the plain reading of Scripture (Remember, the words referring to the Lord's future coming are always singular, never plural.)
Conclusion
In assessing the "contrasting details" argument for two Second Comings, there is only one question we must ask. Do pre-Tribulationists offer any explicit passages in which two Comings are taught, instead of one? We believe the answer is no. Walvoord intoned that it was impossible to harmonize a number of contrasts without ignoring or spiritualizing away their details. But after examining them, we realize it is not Biblical details which must be ignored or explained away; it is only the pre-Trib fallacies! In reality, there never were any literal, Scriptural details which supported the pre-Trib position of two future Comings. All the supposed contrasts which were offered as proof turned out to be either artificial or the product of fallacious reasoning. Though pre-Tribulationists labor mightily to disguise it, the fact remains—there is absolutely no Biblical support for two future Comings of our Lord.
What, then, does this tell us about the pre-Trib rapture? Clearly, if the Bible does not teach two future Comings of our Lord—we can rest assured that the Lord's return is a singular event. Why? Because "the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). And if His future coming is a singular event, the pre-Trib rapture quickly disappears.
Finally, there is an irony in the claim that the pre-Trib system of two Comings untangles the events of Christ's second coming. Apart from pre-Tribulationism's many fallacious assumptions, there wouldn't be much to untangle. But there is an even greater irony. Above all, pre-Tribulationists pride themselves on a literal approach to Scripture. Yet, they do not hesitate to jettison a clear, literal teaching (a single Second Coming) in favor of two future Comings—a belief which gains its support entirely from logical fallacies.
Notes on Chapter 2.
Last Updated December 19, 1997 by Larry Simmons