CHAPTER SEVEN
To this point, we have examined a number of arguments for the pre-Trib rapture. Of these, the most crucial has been the claim of two future Comings of our Lord. Why? Because if two future Comings cannot be established, all the other pre-Trib arguments are meaningless. In a round about way, even Walvoord agrees with this assessment. You will remember from Chapter Two that he offers a dozen "contrasts" which supposedly cannot be harmonized apart from two future Comings. Perhaps sensing most of those were not overly convincing, he appears to have placed all his hopes on a single contrast—the one involving a proposition known as imminency. It is by means of this doctrine that he hopes, at long last, to establish two future Comings of our Lord. (No wonder he calls imminency the heart of pre-Tribulationism.)
If this can be done, the next step is far less difficult—that is, arguing one of the Comings must occur before the Tribulation. However, if two Comings cannot be established, the pre-Trib rapture will have roughly the same life expectancy as a Big Mac on Air Force One. Furthermore, based on the following quote, it is safe to say that Walvoord recognizes imminency as the last hope of the pre-Trib rapture; he writes, "For all practical purposes, abandonment of the pretribulational return of Christ is tantamount to abandonment of the hope of His imminent return." 1 With this in mind, we turn to the next major argument for pre-Tribulationism.
"Only the pre-Trib view preserves the motivating power of imminency teaching found in the New Testament that was such a challenge to the early church." 2
Here, LaHaye presents two separate arguments for a pre-Trib rapture. First, the claim is made that imminency is taught in the New Testament. If this is true, it follows that an any-moment (and presumably pre-Trib) rapture becomes a likely possibility. Second, it is suggested that apart from the anticipation that goes with an imminent rapture, the church would become "carnal and spiritually dead." 3
Everyone agrees that many events are prophesied before the Glorious Appearing of the Lord at the end of the age (Antichrist's appearing, the appearance of the two witnesses, signs in the heavens, etc.). But pre-Tribbers also believe Jesus could return for the church at any moment (at the rapture), without regard to those prophesied events. This is known as imminency. While the word seems to imply that the rapture is soon or impending, it has an altogether different meaning for pre-Tribulationists. Simply stated, it is a belief that, unlike the Second Coming, there are no prophesied events which must occur before the rapture.
1. Passages teaching imminency. According to LaHaye, a number of New Testament passages teach an imminent return of the Lord. Included are, John 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, I Corinthians 15:51-52, Philippians 3:20, and Colossians 3:4. If we examine these passages, we gain some insight into how pre-Tribulationists handle Scripture. Take, for example, Philippians 3:20. "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." While there is a clear reference to His coming, what we do not see is any indication as to whether or not prophesied signs precede this coming. Yet, LaHay insists the passage teaches an imminent return! Let's look at another passage, this time, John 14:1-3. "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if 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." Again, there is a clear reference to His coming. But where, we ask, is the language showing this return is without reference to signs? Put another way, what in these passages could lead us to believe the Lord might return before the prophesied signs of His Second Coming? The answer, of course, is there is absolutely nothing which suggests such a conclusion.
This raises an obvious question. How is it that passages which are silent on the matter of signs can be said to teach imminency? Believe it or not, pre-Tribulationists conclude the Lord's return is imminent based solely on the fact that the passages contain nothing which precludes imminency! (Using the same logic, you could prove your neighbors are Martians—that is, if they never indicated they weren't Martians.) Perhaps you have difficulty believing respected Christian leaders resort to arguments such as this. If so, we invite you to note carefully Walvoord's comments on the John 14:1-3 passage: "The prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events. (Italics added). Here, as in other passages dealing with the coming of Christ for the church, the hope is presented as an imminent hope." 4
It should be mentioned that LaHaye claims there are still other passages which teach we can expect the Lord at any time. They are:
While these verses do say the Lord could come at any time, they do not suggest the Lord taught imminency. In fact, Walvoord flatly denies that these are imminency passages. Why? Because they are all tied to a series of signs which occur during the Tribulation. And by that time, all the prophesied signs will have been fulfilled. Hence, by definition, they can hardly be used to suggest a coming which occurs before the prophesied signs.
2. Passages contributing to the concept of imminency. To his credit, Walvoord is generally more guarded in his claims about what the Bible teaches than LaHaye. For instance, he never declares there are New Testament passages which teach imminency. Instead, he offers passages which, in his words, "contribute to the concept of imminency." 5 Among these are, John 14:1-3, I Thessalonians 4-5, and I John 3:1-3. We will examine the arguments associated with each of these passages.
1. John 14:1-3. We have already seen how this passage is used to promote imminency—by invoking an argument from silence. But that is not the only tack pre-Tribbers take. LaHaye offers his own unique attempt to ascribe imminency to this familiar passage. He writes, "The promise that our Lord could appear at any moment to take His church up to His Father's house was delivered by our Lord Himself (see John 14:1-3)." 6 Later he adds, "Ever since our Lord promised the early Christians that He was returning to His Father's house to prepare a place for them and that He would 'come again and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there you may be also,' believers have looked forward to being translated (raptured) rather than seeing death." 7
Now, let's consider whether these comments are justified. About 25 years after the Lord spoke the words recorded in John 14, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church at Corinth. In that letter (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), Paul revealed the mystery of the rapture of the church. "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." (I Corinthians 15:51-52). A mystery, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, is a truth previously withheld by God, but now made known by Divine revelation. Therefore, if you can believe Paul, that mystery—the fact that some believers would not die—had never before been revealed! This means, 25 years earlier, Jesus most certainly did not promise an any-moment (imminent) rapture in the John 14 passage. By the same token, because that mystery had not yet been revealed, the disciples could hardly have been anticipating the rapture instead of death, as LaHaye claims.
2. The second section of Scripture Walvoord offers in defense of imminency is I Thessalonians, Chapters 4 and 5. However, he makes reference to just one verse: "Therefore, comfort one another with these words." (4:18). Walvoord does not say how this passage contributes the concept of imminency. He merely asserts the rapture had been taught as an imminent hope. LaHaye, however, is not so reticent. From this phrase, he develops a "comfort" argument in favor of imminency. In his words, "the hope and comfort aspect of the Rapture demands that we escape the Tribulation, being raptured out of this world before God's wrath begins." 8
Clearly, that is a lot to read into the simple admonition to "comfort one another with these words." Let's see if it is valid. First of all, why did that particular church need to be comforted? According to well-known Pre-Trib writer, Charles Ryrie, the specific issue that troubled them was, "Does the death of a believer before the Lord comes cause him to lose all hope of sharing in the glorious reign of Christ? Paul's answer is the reassuring affirmation that the dead will be raised and will share in the kingdom." 9 So far, so good. But how does LaHaye expand the rapture so it not only raises the dead in Christ, but also demands the church be removed before the Tribulation? Here is his reasoning: God revealed the rapture in order to comfort the church at Thessalonica; that means the rapture is a doctrine of comfort; obviously, it would not be a comfort to go through Tribulation; so, it follows the church will be raptured before the Tribulation.
This, my friend, is one of the more stunning applications of the fallacy of division you will ever encounter. (The fact that the rapture brought comfort once does not mean it is a doctrine of comfort in every instance.) To illustrate the error in this reasoning, we could just as easily conclude the comfort nature of the rapture demands it occur before April 15, since the thought of paying income taxes is not comforting to those in the church.
3. The third passage which, we are told, contributes to imminency is I John 3:1-3. "See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure."
You say, how does this passage contribute to imminency? Obviously, it offers no indication that a Coming of the Lord is without reference to signs. Walvoord, however, suggests the presence of the word hope amounts to an argument for imminency. "The hope of seeing Christ as He is and being like Him is a purifying hope." And this hope, he claims, "is realistic in proportion to its imminency." 10 Needless to say, Walvoord does not attempt to support this novel claim from Scripture. However, he does offer an analogy about a housewife. "Housewives engage in special efforts of preparation when guests are expected momentarily, while the tendency would be unconcern if visitors were far removed." From this observation he concludes, "The teaching of the coming of the Lord is always presented as an imminent event that should occupy the Christian's thought and life to a large extent." 11 Incredibly, this is the kind of "evidence" which leads Walvoord to suggest I John 3:1-3 contributes to the concept of imminency. To grasp the fatuousness of this logic, we need only view the formal argument.
Believe it or not, the three passages above, along with their corresponding arguments, represent the strongest "Biblical" arguments to be found in behalf of this doctrine. Little wonder Walvoord could not bring himself to say these passages actually teach imminency.
As part of Reason # 7, LaHaye also suggested that apart from the anticipation that goes with an imminent rapture, the church would become "carnal and spiritually dead." In other words, he argues that the Lord's return is imminent, simply because, in his opinion, imminency is necessary for the well-being of the church.
1. As mentioned in his housewife analogy, Walvoord suggests imminency aids in achieving holiness. "And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (I John 3:3). He then reasoned that "the hope is realistic in proportion to its imminency." Again, LaHaye goes beyond the scholarly Walvoord. Not content with the proposition that imminency is an aid to holiness, LaHaye asserts that is indispensable! Here is his description of a life without imminency, "In a spiritual sense, I may not be able to sleep profoundly, but I can certainly afford a few lapses, a few catnaps." He goes on to say, "Our Lord and His apostles taught imminency to those early Christians and to us in order to counter the temptations of our world system and Satan himself." 12
Before accepting LaHaye's proposition, we need to ask the obvious question; is it true? Is imminency, in fact, the Biblical lynch-pin which sustains holiness? (You must admit, that would be quite an accomplishment for a doctrine never mentioned in Scripture.) Reviewing the Biblical record, we find holiness stems from a number of factors. For instance, in II Corinthians 6:18, we are told we should be holy because of our relationship to the Father. "'And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' says the Lord Almighty." Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." And, in I Peter 2:1-3 we learn that if we have "tasted the kindness of the Lord," we are to put aside "all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander." What we do not find, however, is any indication that holiness stems from a belief in imminency.
What, then, is the real impetus for seeking to purify our souls? Is it the possibility that we might be raptured today, as LaHaye suggests? Or is it the certainty that we will see Him someday? We think, the latter. Because Messiah was raised from the dead, we know we will stand before Him one day. It is because of this truth, rather than a belief in imminency, that we purify our souls. But in truth, whether imminency aids holiness is irrelevant. For even if holiness increases exponentially because of the belief, it does not follow that the Bible teaches imminency.
2. As a final argument for imminency, LaHaye claims it has been the determining factor behind all productive periods in church history. "It is a sad commentary on the church that in its twenty- century history, only five centuries have featured imminency. But those have been the most consecrated, soul-winning, missionary-minded, and spiritually productive days of the church." 13 This is a bold and sweeping statement. Before accepting it at face value, we should ask some questions. For instance, what was the basis for determining church productivity? Who decided that imminency was the pivotal factor in those five productive centuries? Might other issues also have contributed, such as, persecution, changes in church government, the Reformation, or even the sovereign movement of God? In short, this sounds like a technique in argumentation known as hasty generalization. But even if this particular generalization had some merit, it would still not prove the Bible teaches imminency.
By now it should be clear that, apart from employing the fallacy of an argument from silence, Scripture NEVER presents the rapture as a signless (imminent) event. But the problems for imminency do not stop there. Perhaps even more threatening is the fact that a number of Scriptures seem to contradict the doctrine. These problem texts imply that either an extended period of time or certain prophesied events must transpire before the Lord's return. Following are six such texts:
1. The Lord's promise to Peter that he would die at an old age. (See John 21:18-19). Herein is a huge problem for imminency. If the rapture was presented as imminent, as pre-Tribbers maintain, that means it could have happened at any moment from Pentecost until now. Yet, the Lord, Himself, prophesied that Peter would die an old man. This prophecy directly contradicts the pre- Trib doctrine of imminency in two vital points:
It should be mentioned that Walvoord does not try to dispute the damage this prophecy does to imminency. Rather, he attempts to blunt its effect by suggesting the early church probably had no knowledge of the prophecy. He writes, "The prophecy as recorded in John 21 apparently was not common property of the church until long after he died anyway and constituted no obstacle to belief in the imminency of the Lord's coming for the great majority of Christians." 14 As to how he came to that conclusion, Walvoord does not say. Without concrete evidence that the church was ignorant of the prophecy, we must assume Walvoord arrives at this conclusion in the same way he arrives at others—through begging the question (assuming that which you are trying to prove).
Since the first premise cannot be proven, it appears the grounds for Walvoord's rebuttal—claiming ignorance by the early church—stems once again from a logical fallacy. What's more, the whole assumption flies in the face of common sense. The men who did most of the teaching in the early church were the apostles. No doubt they were aware of the Lord's words concerning Peter, and there is simply no reason to think they conspired to withhold that particular piece of information from the church.
2. The parables which imply a long interval of time before the Lord returns. (See Matt. 25:14-30, the parable of the talents; Luke 19:11-27, parable of the minas). These passages argue against the concept of an any moment rapture.
3. Various passages which imply that the program for this age would be extensive. These texts imply a considerable period of time before the Lord returns. Again, the problem is that an extended delay is inconsistent with the teaching of an any moment rapture. Included are:
4. Paul's extensive missionary plans, and his knowledge of his approaching death. As in the prophecy concerning Peter, we see the necessity of a passage of time and a prophesied future event—Paul's death—before the rapture could occur.
5. The prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preceding the Lord's return. (See Luke 21:20- 24).
6. The specific signs of the Lord's coming given at the Olivet Discourse. (See Matt. 24:1-25:30).
Considering what is at stake—the viability of the Pre-Trib rapture—pre-Tribbers have very little to say concerning these problem texts. Walvoord merely offers that "most of the difficulties raised by post-tribulationists dissolve upon examination." Yet, his meager comments on these texts by no means constitute an examination. In the matter of the Lord prophesying Peter's death, Walvoord observes, "Peter was middle-aged at the time the prophecy of John 21:18-19 was given." Regarding the parables which imply a long period before the Lord's return, he had only this to say: "The long period pictured by the parables could certainly be fitted into the doctrine of imminency. A long period for a journey might occupy only a few years, as far as the first century Christians could determine." 15 What should be evident to all is that these scant observations do nothing to "dissolve" the difficulties created by these problem texts. The fact of the matter is, whether Peter was middle-aged is irrelevant; that the Lord might be gone for only a few years is also irrelevant. What does matter is that Scripture demonstrates that, for a while at least, an imminent rapture was an utter impossibility.
Perhaps the best indicator of the force of these problem texts is that Walvoord chooses not to confront them directly. Instead, he attempts to diffuse them by reassuring us that "most of the hindrances to the coming of the Lord at any moment in the first century no longer exist." 16 Then he launches two indirect (and highly creative) defenses of imminency.
The Red Herring
In the first of these defenses, Walvoord attempts to divert our attention from these problem texts by introducing a side issue. This tactic is known as a red herring. Here, Walvoord poses a new (and altogether disturbing) line of reasoning. Incredibly, he suggests the case for imminency should hinge on what the first century believers thought about the doctrine! He writes, "the question is whether the first-century Christians believed and taught the imminent return of Christ in the sense that it could occur at any moment." 17 That Walvoord would attempt this particular argument is indeed puzzling. We say that because, earlier in the same book, he concludes it is impossible to tell what first century Christians believed about imminency! Concerning the earliest Christian writings on the subject, Walvoord writes, "Frequently the same writers who seemed to imply imminency later detailed events that must precede the Rapture and the second coming of Christ. At best, the situation is confused." 18 But, despite that observation, Walvoord chooses to ignore the implications of the Lord's prophecy concerning Peter (about which there is no confusion), and he assumes instead that first century Christians believed and taught the doctrine of imminency—a conclusion which he has already admitted cannot be known for certain!
Clearly, this red herring should be ignored. It is ludicrous to contend that what early Christians thought or taught about imminency should be the determining factor. All that matters is what the Scriptures say. And to this point, the problem texts still argue strongly against the doctrine.
Introducing Imminency-lite
The second maneuver Walvoord employs is more ingenious. Although admitting there are texts which raise difficulties for the doctrine of imminency, he states, "most of the hindrances to the coming of the Lord at any moment in the first century no longer exist. A long period has elapsed; Peter and Paul have gone home to the Lord; only the specific signs of Matthew 24-25 remain to be fulfilled." 19
This argument is what we might call a theological shell game. Without notice, Walvoord withdraws the concept of imminency which, until now, he has so laboriously defended. Then he surreptitiously replaces it with a new proposition. Now he seeks to establish that, at some undetermined point, the Lord's return became (or perhaps will become) imminent! With just a little analysis, it becomes apparent that the two propositions are as different as night and day. In order to conceal this slight-of-hand, however, the new version is still referred to as imminency. (To avoid confusion, we will call this new model "imminency-lite." That's because it has all the benefits of old imminency, but none of the requirements.) When Walvoord asserts that the difficulties to an imminent return have been resolved by either the passage of time or events, he blithely discards the very issues which once defined imminency! Moreover, the new doctrine which he passes off in its place is utter nonsense. It is no more profound than saying—when all the necessary signs have been fulfilled, no more signs will be required. We think you will agree, if this is all that is left of the doctrine of imminency, the concept has been rendered worthless.
As an aside, when Pre-Trib teachers speak of imminency, more often than not, it is this substitute concept they are talking about. This can be demonstrated from their teachings on the "signs of the times." Walvoord writes, "All areas of prophecy combine in the united testimony that history is preparing our generation for the end of the age. In each area of prophecy a chronological checklist of important prophetic events can be compiled. In each list in regard to the church, the nations, or Israel, the events of history clearly indicate that the world is poised and ready for the rapture of the church..." 20 Put another way, Walvoord is suggesting that enough signs may now have been fulfilled that, perhaps at this point, the rapture can be considered imminent! Unquestionably, such a practice flies in the face of the original definition of imminency.
Perhaps you are wondering why pre-Tribbers put stock in a nonsensical doctrine such as imminency-lite. The answer is simple. Very few are aware the definition has been changed, so pre- Trib teachers now have the best of both worlds—signs and imminency. With imminency-lite, these two concepts are no longer mutually exclusive, thus allowing pre-Tribbers to continue their long-standing practice of observing sign after sign being fulfilled, while still maintaining that the rapture is (or rather, will soon be) imminent.
We heartily concur with Walvoord, who suggested that without imminency there is little hope for the pre-Trib rapture. It is, after all, their best chance to prove two future Comings instead of one. Unfortunately for pre-Tribulationism, it does not appear that imminency can be established as a valid Biblical doctrine. Having absolutely no direct support from Scripture, the only resort for imminency is to build an indirect case for the doctrine. That clearly fails, however, since all the arguments seem to be based on logical fallacies. What's more, common sense tells us the Lord would never transmit an important doctrine in such a way that it could only be deduced by incorporating an argument from silence.
Morever, none of the problem texts can be "explained away," which leaves Scripture completely at odds with the concept of imminency. In the final analysis, Reason # 7 cannot be considered a valid argument for the pre-Trib rapture. Therefore, it should be summarily rejected.
Notes on Chapter 7.
Last Updated November 6, 1997 by Larry Simmons