CHAPTER SIX
This bears an eerie resemblance to some pre-Trib claims of today. For instance, they too purport to have a word from the Lord for His people—in this case, a supposed promise from Scripture "that the church of Jesus Christ will not pass through the Tribulation period." 1 Yet, there is no such explicit promise anywhere in the Bible. (If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) So, what are we to make of this "promise" that the church will not go through Tribulation? Can it be legitimately inferred from Scripture, or is it a modern version of "falsehood and lying divination"? This question will be answered as we examine the next major pre-Trib argument.
From pre-Trib writings, we find three variations on the same argument. In each, an event is presented which we know the church will not experience. Included are wrath, the day of the Lord, and the hour of testing. Each of these is held to be synonymous with the seven-year Tribulation. The logical conclusion, of course, is that the church must be raptured before the Tribulation. But, whether these events are actually synonymous with the Tribulation remains to be seen.
In the Book of the Revelation we find the most detailed account of the period at the end of the age. Pre-Tribbers assume chapters 6-18 cover the seven-year Tribulation period. This is assumed even though the word wrath is not used until the end of the Sixth Chapter, following the events of the sixth seal. "And I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood." (Revelation 6 :12). Seeing this, men say to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come and who is able to stand?" (Revelation 6:15-17). What's more, you must realize that, even then, wrath is still future! According to Luke, after the signs in the sun and the moon and stars (events of the Sixth seal), there will be "men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Luke 21: 26).
Nevertheless, pre-Tribbers hold that wrath begins at the first seal. For support, they point to the phrase, "the great day of their wrath has come," which is in the aorist tense. This, they say, means wrath was a "once for all" or "completed" event of the past. (No doubt, this wrath is back-dated to the beginning of the Tribulation—otherwise, it could not be synonymous with the Tribulation.) It is interesting to note that when pre-Tribulationists come to the same aorist usage in Revelation 19:7, they sing a different tune. There we read, "the marriage of the lamb has come..." Of this verse they say, "the aorist cannot be allowed to push the marriage itself back into the past." 3 Rather, the marriage is said to be an imminent future event. The different tune is understandable, for if ever the marriage is allowed to be viewed as a completed past event, another pre-Trib rapture argument bites the dust (the claim for a required interval between Comings).
So, having established that wrath is not mentioned in conjunction with the broken seals of Chapter 6, we turn to the trumpet judgments of Chapters 8 and 9. Much to the dismay of pre- Tribulationists, it is not mentioned here either. The fact of the matter is, every mention of wrath is limited to the period of the seven bowls of judgment. "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished." (Revelation 15:1). And again, "I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, "Go and pour out the seven bowls of the wrath of God into the earth.'" (Revelation 16:1).
Based on the Revelation account, there does not appear to be any justification for the pre-Trib assumption that wrath is synonymous with the seven-year Tribulation. Thus, the whole argument is unsound. In fact, it would seem more in line with the Biblical narrative to suggest the rapture will occur just prior to the seven bowls of wrath—not seven years earlier, as pre-Tribbers teach.
What is interesting about this definition is that it is offered by one who claims to adhere to a method of "consistently literal or plain interpretation" of Scripture.5 Yet, no day of the Lord passage remotely suggests that day is synonymous with either the Tribulation or the millennial kingdom. What, then, is the justification for including them? Regarding the millennial kingdom, Walvoord offers the following proof (?): "The Book of Zephaniah adds another aspect to the day of the Lord. After revealing in some detail the judgments to occur at that time, the prophecy describes the blessings that will follow." (Note: the judgments are found in 1:7-18). He then goes on to quote the blessings which are found in Chapter 3, verses 14-17. From this he concludes, "The significant truth revealed here is that the day of the Lord, which first inflicts terrible judgments, ends with an extended period of blessing on Israel, and this will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom." 6 In other words, Walvoord lumps the millennial kingdom together with the day of the Lord—all because an account of one is found two chapters after an account of the other. By now, the fallacy in such reasoning should be obvious. It is a non sequitur. Though blessings are prophesied to occur after the judgments, it does not follow that they are part of the judgments.
But it is the first part of the definition which is our main concern. What we want to know is, does Scripture ever say the day of the Lord begins with the Tribulation? To answer, let us turn to some of the passages which describe the day of the Lord, and from these references, we make several observations about the event.
A. Physical signs. In the Book of Isaiah, we read concerning the day of the Lord, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shed its light." (Isaiah 13:10). The same signs are repeated in the Book of Joel, but this time with some additional information—that is, their chronology. There we read, "The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord." (Joel 2:31).
This passage presents a huge problem for pre-Tribulationism. Remember, according to Joel, the prophesied signs come before the day of the Lord. If the Tribulation coincides with the day of the Lord, as pre-Tribulationists teach, it follows that the signs listed by Joel would also come before the Tribulation. But that is not the case! The prophesied signs do not occur until the Tribulation is well under way—after the breaking of the sixth seal. "And I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to earth..." (Revelation 6:12). This means the day of the Lord cannot occur until well after the Tribulation has begun.
B. Political signs. In II Thessalonians we read, "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the day of the Lord) will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." (2:3-4). Under pre-Trib doctrine, Antichrist is not revealed—taking his seat in the temple—until mid-way through the Tribulation. So, once again, it appears the Tribulation cannot be the starting point for the day of the Lord.
Despite these explicit prophecies, they do not budge from their positions. (Pre-Tribulationists, it would seem, have no intention of being undone by plain readings from Scripture.) Concerning the I & II Thessalonian references to that "day", their solution is to further refine the definition of the day of the Lord. According to Walvoord, problems arise when you assume the day of the Lord is "a simple and uncomplicated reference to a point in time, whereas in fact the total view of Scripture indicates something quite different." 7 He goes on to suggest there should be three separate definitions for the day of the Lord. They are: "(1) references to a day of the Lord as referring to any period of time in the past or future when God deals directly in judgment on human sin; (2) a day of the Lord in the sense of certain specific future events constituting a judgment of God; (3) the broadest possible sense of the term, indicating a time in which God deals directly with the human situation, both in judgment and in blessing, hence broad enough to include not only the judgments preceding the Millennium but also the blessings of the Millennium itself." 8 So, with three separate definitions in hand, it is always possible for the pre-Tribulationist to choose one which doesn't contradict Scripture. Walvoord writes, "As we encounter the difficult problem of I Thessalonians 5, the broadest definition of the day of the Lord is indicated. This contrasts, for instance, with 2 Thessalonians 2, where the narrower definition of the second category is illustrated." 9 (It should be noted that Walvoord admits this method of classification is not even recognized by all pre-Tribulationists.)
From a logical standpoint, using Walvoord's solution of three definitions can only be described as begging the question. Regarding the third definition—which is unique to pre-Tribulationalism—he offers no valid evidence that (1) the day of the Lord begins with the Tribulation or (2) the day of the Lord encompasses the millennial kingdom.
Their solution for handling the prophecy of Joel—that the signs in the heavens occur before the day of the Lord—is far less creative. Pre-Tribbers merely claim the passage does not mean what it says! Here is what Walvoord had to say about Joel's prophecy, "What is meant here is not that the day of the Lord will begin after these wonders in heaven, but that it will come to its climax when the judgment is actually executed." 10 That Walvoord strives to put his own "spin" on Joel 2:31 is understandable. But there is no reason why his interpretation should be accepted over the normal reading of the passage.
Based on the passages above, we must conclude the beginning of the Tribulation does not coincide with the day of the Lord. It follows, then, that the day of the Lord cannot be used to argue for the pre-Trib rapture.
In truth, this so-called guarantee, like many other pre-Trib claims, owes its very existence to a logical fallacy. Unlike wrath and the day of the Lord, the phrase, "hour of testing," is found but once in Scripture. This means we can only look to the passage itself for its meaning. The fact of the matter is, the passage suggests neither what is meant by the hour of testing, nor what it means to be kept from that hour. According to Leon Morris, "keep thee from (ek) the hour of temptation might mean 'keep thee from undergoing the trial' or 'keep thee right through the trial.' The Greek is capable of either meaning." 13 So, to assert either (1) that the hour of trial coincides with the seven-year Tribulation, or (2) that we will be removed from the hour as opposed to protected through it, is pure speculation. This, of course, renders the whole hour of testing argument an exercise in begging the question.
Notes on Chapter 6
Last Updated November 6, 1997 by Larry Simmons