CHAPTER THREE
In the last chapter we showed that pre-Tribulationists failed to establish two future Comings of our Lord as a Biblical fact. Nevertheless, they presume it is true and now proceed to a number of second tier arguments—such as, why the first of these Comings, the rapture, must occur at least seven years before the prophesied Second Coming.
"It allows sufficient time to interject important end-time events."1
In the pre-Trib system, three end-time events are said to occur in heaven in between the rapture and the prophesied Second Coming. They are: (1) the taking of believers to the Father's house, (2) the Judgment Seat of Christ, and (3) the Marriage Supper. According to LaHaye, "Only the pre- Trib position allows sufficient time for such events to be fulfilled with dignity and grace."2
This appears to be an expression of a single argument, but it is actually three. First, it is implied that certain prophesied events can only occur between two future Comings. Then there is a companion assertion that a time span of less than seven years would be inadequate for completing these events in a dignified manner. And finally, both these arguments rest on the foundational premise of two future Comings, as it would be nonsense to speak of interjecting end-time events between a single future Coming.
Pre-Trib Argument: Certain end-time events must occur between the two future Comings.
If it can be established from Scripture that certain end-time events must occur (1) in heaven, and (2) before the prophesied Second coming, the case for a pre-Trib rapture would be greatly improved. After all, how else might believers get from earth to heaven before the prophesied Second Coming? Unfortunately, pre-Tribbers are again plagued by an absence of direct Scriptural evidence. There are simply no passages explicitly placing these events in heaven prior to the Second Coming. Let's examine the arguments for each of the events in question.
1. Taking believers to the Father's House.
LaHaye suggests that if the Lord does not take believers to His Father's house before the Second Coming, He will break a promise.3 He derives this understanding from John 14:2-3. "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." (John 14:2-3). Plainly, there is no mention of taking believers to heaven before the Second Coming. (Nor is there any suggestion that He will come twice.) Jesus simply promised that He would come again, and from that point on, His followers would always be with Him.
So, why do pre-Tribbers teach something the Scriptures don't? The answer is that they interpret this passage, not according to its plain reading, but based on their assumptions. Though the passage mentions only one Coming, they assume there are two. Of those two Comings, they assume Jesus is here referring to the earlier and not the later. Finally, they assume after this Coming Jesus will return to heaven, where He will remain until His final Coming, an event which (also assumed) is to take place at least seven years later. Incredibly, though not one word in this passage specifically warrants these assumptions, pre-Tribulationists routinely offer these verses as a proof text for their beliefs! That is what is known as circular reasoning—a logical fallacy wherein you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Bottom line, this passage provides absolutely no evidence of two Comings nor for the belief that Christians will be transported to heaven seven years before the Second Coming.
2. The Judgment Seat of Christ.
In a previous chapter we alluded to Walvoord's declaration that it was desperate exegesis to build any doctrine without explicit teaching from Scripture. Yet, in the matter of the Judgment Seat of Christ, he succumbs to that very practice. He writes, "While the time of the judgment is not explicit in any of the passages, certain other evidences seem to require this judgment as preceding and prerequisite to the Second Coming itself."4
One of the evidences Walvoord uses to justify his conclusion is the presence of the 24 elders in Revelation 4:4. He opines that if they are interpreted as referring to the church "it would tend to confirm that judgment of the church has already taken place, as they are already crowned."5 Once more, the problem is that there is no Scriptural support for that interpretation. In fact, Walvoord admits this conclusion is disputed. That means its use as evidence is a logical fallacy (petito principi or begging the question).
For the second piece of evidence, he points to the fine linen which the saints are wearing in Revelation 19:8. According to the text, this linen represents the righteous acts of the saints. Walvoord believes the linen garment also represents their reward from the Judgment Seat of Christ. If that is true, it follows that at the time of the Second Coming, the saints will already have been judged, thus proving the Judgment Seat of Christ occurs between the two future Comings.
There are, however, serious difficulties with this conclusion. For one thing, because the Bible is silent on the issue, the notion that fine linen is a Judgment Seat reward is merely an assumption. Therefore, offering it as evidence to prove the Judgment Seat occurs before the Second Coming begs the question. What's more, the Bible suggests this judgment is an individual one. According to I Corinthians 3:13-15, rewards will be based on the quality of each person's individual works. It follows, then, that rewards will vary from saint to saint. In fact, Scripture indicates some will receive no reward at all. For that reason, Walvoord's assumption that the saints' fine linen is a reward from the Judgment Seat simply cannot be true. Otherwise, at least some of the Revelation 19 saints would be forced to return to earth naked (which we believe John would have noticed). All this to say, there does not appear to be any Biblical basis for teaching the Judgment Seat of Christ must convene prior to the Second Coming.
3. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
All we know about the marriage supper is from a single verse: "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Revelation 19:9). The question before us is simply, does Scripture demand the Marriage Supper occur (1) in heaven and (2) before the Second Coming? The answer to both parts is no. The use of the word invited suggests the Supper is still future, but we can glean nothing further. In fact, the text raises more questions than it answers. For instance, is there an actual formal ceremony? If so, does it occur in heaven? Or in the clouds? On all these questions, the Bible is silent. We can say, however, that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate a time-consuming ceremony as claimed by LaHaye,6 which brings us to the next pre-Trib argument.
Pre-Trib Argument: An interval is required between the two future Comings.
"If the church is to be judged, rewarded, and joined to Christ in the symbol of marriage before the Second Advent, an interval of time is required."7
Response. The argument that these events require an interval between Comings begs the question. As we have already shown, there is no Biblical support for interjecting these events before the Second Coming. And though this argument for an interval of time is a logical fallacy, it is nevertheless interesting to follow. As mentioned, LaHaye maintains that at least seven years is necessary for certain end-time events to be completed "with dignity and grace." This includes the "Judgement Seat of Christ for millions of people" as well as the Marriage Ceremony and Supper of the Lamb. Over 40 years ago, George Ladd pointed out the absurdity of this argument. In his excellent book, The Blessed Hope, he wrote, "If a period of time must intervene for this judgment to take place, will seven years be enough? It is estimated that there are two hundred million living Christians. In seven years there are just over two hundred million seconds. How much of a fraction of a second is necessary for the judgment of each believer?"8 (So much for dignity and grace.) It should be mentioned that there are now perhaps five or six times more believers than there were 40 years ago, making the necessity of a seven year interval all the more inane.
Walvoord response to Ladd's comments is also interesting. He resorts to a debating tactic known as a red herring. That is where you seek to draw attention to a side issue so you can avoid the central one. In this case, Walvoord launches a diversionary attack on Ladd's rebuttal, hoping he will not have to defend his own claim for the necessity of an interval between Comings. He begins by commenting, "This argument would seem to border on the ridiculous—God is not subject to the same limitations as men." He continues, "If seven years is too short, would one hundred years be long enough— approximately fourteen seconds—to judge each of Ladd's estimated two hundred million? The obvious refutation of Ladd's argument is that God is not limited. We can infer from such judgments as that of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that there is no divine problem in judging millions at once."9
What Walvoord seems to forget, however, is that it wasn't Ladd's argument in the first place—it belonged to the pre-Tribulationists! Ladd was merely taking their reasoning to its logical conclusion in order to illustrate the absurdity of a required seven year interval. It should be mentioned that Walvoord never does get around to demonstrating a Biblical basis for an interval between Comings. He merely restates his position that an interval is required. Here is how he concludes the matter: "Undoubtably, only a fraction of the seven years between the Rapture and the Lord's return to the earth is occupied with judgments. The point is that this judgment, important as it is, precedes the return to earth and could hardly be accomplished during the process of the Second Advent itself."10 In other words, Walvoord intones that while the pre-Trib arguments for a required interval may be nonsense, an interval is still required!
Conclusion
Pre-Tribbers can't have it both ways. LaHaye and others say the Judgment seat of Christ is a time-consuming event, requiring the better part of seven years. Walvoord, on the other hand, dismisses that argument, suggesting these events might be more or less instantaneous. This is what he means by saying God is not limited. (That being the case, we wonder why Walvoord still insists an interval between Comings is required.) This, plus the fact that no passages explicitly place these events (going to the Father's house, the Judgment Seat, or the Marriage Feast) before the Second Coming, leads us to conclude that Reason #3 does nothing to prove the validity of the pre-Trib rapture position.
Notes on Chapter 3.
Last Updated December 19, 1997 by Larry Simmons