CHAPTER NINE
"It makes a major event out of the Rapture." 1
It goes without saying that pre-Tribulationists make a big deal out of the rapture. LaHaye wrties, "The pre-Trib view makes it a dignified, blessed event commensurate with a heavenly Bridegroom who comes to take His bride to His Father's house for their wedding." By contrast, we are told, "The post-Trib view trivializes it, treating it as an express elevator trip—zip up and right back down." 2 It is this stark difference in emphasis which is the basis for Reason # 9. Here is the formal argument:
The First Premise
According to LaHaye, because of the number of times it is presented in Scripture, we can assume the rapture is a major event. He writes, "Since at least four passages of Scripture describe the Rapture, it must be a significant event." 3 Earlier in the same book, however, he suggests a lesser number, stating there are "at least three (passages) that clearly refer to the Rapture—and several that are less plain. 4 Of the three clear references, two undoubtedly deal with the rapture. They are I Corinthians 15:51-58 and I Thessalonians 4:13-18. But as will be seen momentarily, the third passage, John 14:1-3, is not so clear.
Among the several references which are less plain, LaHaye first mentions Titus 2:13, reaffirming a pre-Trib belief that the blessed hope is none other than the rapture. As was shown in Chapter 5, however, there is no Biblical basis for that interpretation. He also lists II Thessalonians 2:1-12, claiming it is a passage which "contains the Rapture, Tribulation , and the Glorious Appearing all in one chapter." 5 This assertion is also doubtful. The phrase, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him," does not indicate two separate events, as LaHaye would have us believe. This is borne out in Leon Morris' commentary on the verse. He explains, "From the point of view of believers a most important part of the events associated with the great day is their meeting with their Lord. This is the aspect which is brought out in our gathering together unto him." 6 And finally, the whole Book of the Revelation is said to establish the pre-Tribulation rapture—this, in spite of the fact that there is no clear presentation of the event in the entire book. (Some pre-Tribulationists think Revelation 4:1 depicts the rapture, but as will be demonstrated in the next chapter, that interpretation is without merit.)
Now we turn our attention back to John 14:1-3. In the last chapter, we saw how pre-Tribbers transformed this passage into a proof text for imminency (by means of an argument from silence). Now these verses are also said to provide a "clear reference" to the rapture—this, in spite of the fact there is nothing in the text indicating the promised coming is the rapture, as opposed to the prophesied Glorious Appearing. What, then, makes pre-tribbers think it is a clear reference to the rapture? To answer, we first take note of LaHaye's rather curious comments on the passage: "Consider the Lord's challenge to His disciples the night before He died. He did not say, 'Buck up men! Don't let your hearts be troubled just because you have to go through the Tribulation before I can take you to be with Myself.' Instead He urged, 'Let not your hearts be troubled....I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.'" (John 14:1,3).7
As should be obvious by now, this is another argument from silence. But there is an even deeper problem. It has to do with the pre-Trib assessment of what the disciples were thinking at the time of the prophecy. As LaHaye's comments illustrate, he presumes the disciples' foremost concern was the prospect of going through the Tribulation. This is nothing short of preposterous. The context leaves no doubt as to what was troubling them—it was the Lord's announcement that He would soon be leaving them! We find a record of that declaration in John 13:33. "Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You shall seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, I now say to you also, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'" To this, Peter responded by asking (1) where the Lord was going, and (2) why he could not follow Him at that time. (See 13:36-37). It was then that Jesus sought to comfort His followers with the words of John 14:1-3. If Peter's questions are any indication, it does not appear the disciples had the Tribulation in mind at all.
This raises an interesting question. Why does LaHaye ignore the context of John 14, choosing instead to presume the disciples were concerned about facing the Tribulation? We conclude pre- Tribbers are so consumed with establishing the pre-Trib rapture, they can't help themselves. (If you only have a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.) Obviously, they do not care what the plain reading of the passage or its context suggests. Perhaps that is because they are already convinced the pre-Trib rapture exists, and for that reason, they naturally assume all Second Coming passages should be interpreted in the light of that knowledge. So, whenever addressing a prophecy in which the pre-Trib rapture message is not readily apparent (such as John 14), the task is plain: The underlying truth of the pre-Trib message must be brought to the surface—even if that requires resorting to logical fallacies. Now you know what is behind the reasoning which turns John 14 into a "clear reference" to the rapture.
Despite pre-Trib claims to the contrary, we believe Scripture presents only two clear references to the rapture. The question then arises—are two passages enough to make the rapture a major end- time event? No doubt, pre-Tribulationists would think two are sufficient. But frankly, common sense tells us the number of references is not the key issue; all that matters is the content of those references. And based on the information in those two clear texts, we heartily agree with our pre- Trib brethren—the rapture is an altogether extraordinary event in Scripture. In I Thessalonians 4, we see a sublime account of the dead in Christ being raised so they can fully participate, along with those who are alive, in Christ's coming. In I Corinthians 15:51-55, we see a glorious picture of death being "swallowed up in victory" as believers put on immortality. If these incredible accomplishments do not signify a major event in end-time prophecy, nothing does.
The Second Premise
It appears, though, that pre-Tribulationists do not think we go far enough in our appreciation of the rapture. As mentioned, the charge has been made that the post-Trib view "trivializes" the event. To see what is behind this, we observe the contrast which is offered. On the one hand, the post-Trib view is said to treat the rapture like "an express elevator trip—zip up and right back down." Pre-Tribulationism, on the other hand, "makes it a dignified, blessed event commensurate with a heavenly Bridegroom who comes to take His bride to His Father's house for their wedding." 8
The first thing you must realize is that this feigned indignation over the dignity of the rapture is a subterfuge. In reality, this contrast is merely a repackaging of an earlier argument, i.e., Reason # 3. Once again Pre-Tribbers are assuming an interval of time between Comings is necessary—in this case, so the wedding between Christ and the church can be "dignified." You see, the post- Trib view has the church meeting the Lord in the air, then, shortly thereafter, returning to earth with the Lord. By pre-Trib thinking, this does not allow enough time for a proper wedding. So, when pre-Tribbers claim this interpretation trivializes the rapture, what they are really saying is—it trivializes the wedding.
However, pre-Tribulationism's problem is not with the post-Trib view; it is with the Scriptures. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the language in I Thessalonians 4:13 seems to confirm the post-Trib interpretation. The Greek word for meet (as in to meet the Lord in the air) was often used to describe what happened as a visiting dignitary approached a city. Residents would go outside the city to greet the dignitary, then they would return with him as part of his entourage. It should also be mentioned that there is no indication that a prolonged wedding ceremony is in view. Scripture merely announces, "the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." (Revelation 19:7). Then, quite abruptly, the narrative shifts to the events of the Second Coming. (See Revelation 19:11-16).
This brings us to the question of the second premise: Is it true that only the pre-Trib position makes a major event out of the rapture? We believe that answer is, no. It seems evident that all views understand the rapture as a major event. Pre-Tribbers, however, are not likely to agree. That is because they have their own standard for what makes an end-time event major. For them, the rapture is major if, and only if, it is pre-Trib. We saw an example of this mind-set demonstrated in the arguments over the blessed hope of Titus 2:13. On that subject LaHaye writes, "If Christ does not rapture His church before the Tribulation begins, much of hope is destroyed, and thus it becomes a 'blasted hope.'" 9 Bottom line, there is obvious disagreement as to the validity of the second premise.
What should be evident by now is that whether post-Tribbers treat the rapture as a major end-time event is strictly a matter of opinion. Because of that, the second premise can never be established as fact. Therefore, using it to prove Reason # 9, renders the entire argument unsound.
Notes to Chapter 9.
Last Updated November 6, 1997 by Larry Simmons