The Topic Pastor's Rarely Preach

Sadly, the topic of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ – in particular the rapture of the Church – is avoided in many Evangelical churches for, I believe, several reasons. First, the pastor may be ill-equipped or under-equipped, theologically speaking, to address the subject. Secondly, many pastors are uncomfortable addressing the study of last things (eschatology) from the pulpit simply because of the diverse and passionate opinions of people. The topic, then, becomes one of those “Catch 22” scenarios for many pastors. Finally, the subject of eschatology has become the “one hit wonder” of many a preacher who fancies himself an expert in eschatological matters which Scripture is either unclear or does not address. These preachers elevate themselves nearly to the status of prophet when they dogmatically interpret things God’s left intentionally nebulous; particularly when they attempt to align eschatological events described in Scripture with modern news feeds and global geopolitical events. These kinds of preachers only serve to muddy the waters of Scripture and confuse people. Because of them, right or wrong, many pastors shy away from the subject altogether; lest they be lumped into the same category.

That said, it must be understood that not everything taught in Scripture is equally clear; even though the central message of Scripture is essentially clear – that God created the universe with a plan for it, man sinned and marred that plan, and that God has a means whereby He can redeem creation (including mankind) from sin’s affects which will culminate in the Eschaton (last days). Put another way, one might say: God is sovereign, He has a sovereign plan for the universe, and He is working out that sovereign plan according to His Divine wisdom and timing for His ultimate glory. This truth is never seen more clearly than when one delves into the subject of eschatology. Perhaps the most hotly debated eschatological topics are the second coming of Jesus Christ and the rapture of the Church.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

Most theologians agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ will return again. On that point there is little debate. The issues between brethren arise when the topic of the timing of Christ’s return is entertained.

A caution is due here. When dealing with the topic of His Second Coming, Jesus gave certain key details; things that must occur prior to His return, but was never dogmatic on the timing of the initiation of these events. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark are identical when they say, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32). So it is foolish for anyone to claim they are able to pinpoint the timing of the Lord’s Second Coming by aligning modern events with prophecy. Bible teachers and preachers for nearly two millennia have been trying to do just this and have been wrong.

While Paul and the Apostles were never dogmatic on the time of the Lord’s return, there was an assumption that He would return in their lifetimes. This belief must have been present when the Lord ascended into heaven. The Apostles remained where they were expecting Jesus to return momentarily and inaugurate the Kingdom; only to be corrected by an angelic messenger (cf. Acts 1:9-12). Paul wrote, “we who are still alive and are left until the coming of the Lord…” (1 Thess. 4:15). Obviously, he believed Jesus would return in his lifetime and expected to experience the rapture first-hand. Why else would include himself, and those to whom he wrote, in that number? Does this mean that the Apostles were misguided and errant in their theology? No. As will be demonstrated later, this expectation speaks more to the Apostles’ strong belief in the doctrine of imminency.

There are four major theological perspectives regarding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Each of these views hinges directly on the adherents’ beliefs on regarding the Millennial Kingdom and their interpretive position (i.e. their hermeneutic). Each of these perspectives has pros and cons and none of them is water tight due largely to the nature of prophecy and the specificity (or lack thereof) of biblical revelation.

Amillennialism

Those who hold this view believe that the Bible predicts a parallel growth of good and evil in the world between the first and second comings of Christ. They believe that the Kingdom of God is now present in the world through His Word, His Spirit, and His Church. They deny the coming inauguration of a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth.

Amillennialists see the Church Age as a time when the Church reigns spiritually as the New Israel. They do not see any difference between national Israel and the spiritual Church. As the New Israel, much like the old Israel, it is the Church’s responsibility to bring the entire human race into a position of submission to and worship of God. During this period of the Church, she either reigns as the Church militant – fighting to reform and Christianize human society – or as the Church triumphant – having succeeded in reforming human society.

Postmillennialism

Those who hold this view deny the rapture of the Church and believe that the kingdom of God is now extended through teaching, preaching, evangelization, and missionary activities. Once the world is sufficiently Christianized, human society will enter a long period of peace and prosperity they call the Millennium. This period of undetermined length will be followed by a general apostasy, tribulation, and Armageddon. Christ will then return to judge the living and the dead.

Like other perspectives, postmillennialists do not see a difference between Israel and the Church and often confound and confuse the two.

Historic Premillennialism

Historic, or non-dispensational, premillennialism believes that Christ’s Second Coming will be preceded by certain events/signs followed by the institution of His earthly millennial kingdom which will be a 1,000-year period of peace and righteousness with Christ literally reigning on earth. This view makes the Second Coming and Rapture synonymous – the same event. They do not see the Tribulation intervening between the Rapture and Second Coming.

Those who hold to historic premillennialism also do not see a difference between national Israel and the Church. In fact, they view the Church as the spiritual incarnation of Israel and equate the two; often confounding those prophecies which deal with Israel and those relative to the Church.

Dispensational Premillennialism

Those who hold this view see Christ’s Second Coming in two stages: the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming proper. In the first stage, Christ will come for His Church to rapture her to heaven. In the second stage, Christ will come with His Church to establish His literal, 1,000-year reign on earth; called the Millennium. Most who hold this position regarding the Second Coming believe the Rapture to be pretribulational. They see these two stages of Christ’s return as separated by a seven-year period of judgement and outpouring of God’s wrath on humanity known as the Tribulation and believe that Christ will return to rapture the Church to His side prior to the outpouring of God’s wrath on humanity.

One of the hallmarks of Dispensational Premillennialism is its belief that national Israel and the Church are two distinct entities in the unfolding of God’s plan in human history. They see these entities as distinct in origin, purpose, and destiny. Thus, certain prophesies are interpreted according to which entity they apply.

Even though a scholar may hold to the Dispensational Premillennial view of the Second Coming, that does not automatically mean he holds to a pretribulational view of the Rapture. Some see Scripture teaching a post-tribulational, mid-tribulational, or partial rapture.

The Best Second Coming Position

When one examines the various related to the Second Coming, the topic of the Millennial Kingdom cannot be divorced from the discussion for it is central to it.

Amillennialism must be rejected simply due to the preponderance of biblical material that so clearly elucidates the coming of a literal, earthly kingdom with Christ as its king.

Postmillennialism is simply biblically inconsistent and illogical. Waiting for the Church to inaugurate Kingdom values in order to usher in an ideal human society smacks of a novel by H.G. Wells. It just doesn’t work with a literal and consistent interpretation of Scripture.

The best position, I believe, is Dispensational Premillennialism. My preference is due to several considerations.

The dispensational view maintains the most consistent hermeneutic that allows for Israel to fulfill the promises given directly to her while the Church fulfills the promises directly given to her, without confounding the two. It allows for Israel and the Church to maintain their biblically differences – origin, purpose, and destiny. It allows for Israel to fulfill the facets of her various covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants) without the need for the Church to spiritualize them away. Furthermore, because Israel has not fully fulfilled the terms of the Abrahamic or Davidic covenants, it allows her to do so in the Kingdom while allowing the Church to share in the blessings of the New Covenant (cf. Gal. 3:16) - all without confounding the two entities.

This view most consistently interprets passages related to the Kingdom literally without the need to spiritualize them. For example, the resurrection in Revelation 20:4-5 is the first resurrection which precedes the inauguration of the Millennial Kingdom. Another example is the events of Revelation 19-20 which are taken literally without the need to spiritualize them to make them fit, as the other positions tend to do.

This view understands the Kingdom most consistently. Scripture teaches both a universal and mediatorial kingdom. The universal kingdom is the truth that God reigns over all of His creation simply because He is God. The mediatorial kingdom has always been God’s working among men. God first delegated to Adam the role of mediator over all of creation on His behalf (Gen. 1:26). God chose Moses to be the mediator between God and Israel (Ex. 2:24; 3:12). This line of chosen mediators continues until the establishment of the Davidic Covenant and the promise of a continuing Davidic line of mediatorial kings (2 Sam. 7). The ultimate king in the Davidic line is Jesus who will fulfill the promises given to David and establish the ultimate earthly mediatorial kingdom as God incarnate (Isa. 9:6-7). To deny the coming Kingdom altogether (amillennialism), to spiritualize the Kingdom (postmillennialism), or to confound the Kingdom promises given to Israel by supplanting her with the Church (historic premillennialism) is biblically inconsistent.

  

The Doctrine of the Rapture

The subject of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ cannot be fully entertained without some explanation of the Rapture of the Church.

Biblical Material

The New Testament uses several terms to describe this pending historical event. John 14:3 sees Christ speaking, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” The word translated “take you” is the Greek term paralamba,nw (paralambano); meaning “to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self” and signifies that Christ is speaking of personally coming to get the Church and take her to the place He is preparing for her.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Paul uses the term ἐπισυναγωγή (episunagoge) which refers to our “gathering to him;” a reference to the Church being removed from this realm to where Jesus is. Romans 8:23 refers to the “redemption of our bodies” which, admittedly, is not expressly a reference to the Rapture, but does allude to the innate changing of our bodies from a temporal to a glorified state, which is elsewhere taught in Scripture (e.g. Phil. 3:20-21; 1 John 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:36-38). Paul encourages his readers to awaken to the times in which they lived; stating that their salvation was closer now than when they first believed (Rom. 13:11). Peter said that believers are being shielded, or protected, from something by God’s power unto a salvation that will be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5). The writer of Hebrews says that Christ will appear (lit. “will be seen”) not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation to those who are eagerly awaiting Him (Heb. 9:28). The salvation in question in each of these passages cannot be salvation from sin; in fact, the writer of Hebrews expressly dissociates the two. What they are they? Some scholars believe they are references to the believer’s full salvation awaiting him in the final glorification of the body. The problem is that the body is not specifically mentioned in these texts as it is in other texts (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; 2 cor. 4:16-18). Thus, these writers must be referring to something other than the final resurrection and bodily glorification of the saints. The context of Romans 13:11-14 is an urgent appeal for the readers to live in a manner consistent with and expecting a dispensational transition from one economy to another. Paul urges them to understand the times and refers to the night ending and the daylight approaching. Peter’s entire context is eschatological, and the writer of Hebrews mentions in the prior verse that death (of the unredeemed) brings judgement from God. If, then, neither spiritual salvation of the sinner, nor ultimate redemption of the saint are in view, what then is? When one examines parallel salvation texts such as 1 Thess. 1:10 and 5:9 it becomes clear that God intends to spare the Church from His coming wrath. The coming wrath in view is the eschatological Tribulation period. If true, then these texts and others like them point to the Rapture being prior to the Tribulation period.

The doctrine of the Rapture is first mentioned in the Bible in John 14:3, but that is not the only reference. 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 speaks of the truth that not all believers would die, but some would see Christ in the Rapture was new revelation. As such, it was misunderstood and referred to by Paul as a mystery. However, it is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 from which we derive the English term rapture. Our English term is derived from the Latin translation (rapto) of the future tense of the Greek term ἁρπάζω (harpadzo); meaning “to snatch, seize, carry off, take away.” 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the first clear delineation of the Church being caught up and meeting Christ in the air; a clear demarcation between the Rapture and the Second Coming as the latter is always spoken of as a physical return of Christ to the earth, not a mid-air recovery of sorts of the Church.

Events and Participants in the Rapture

The events of the Rapture are clearly elucidated in the New Testament. They are two events that happen almost simultaneously. The Rapture begins with God’s clarion trumpet call which brings forth dead saints who are raised to life and raptured to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess. 4:6). Immediately on the heels of this, living saints hear the trumpet call of God and are raptured to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:51) along with their formerly dead brethren.

Scripture states that the Rapture is only for Church age saints. Old Testament saints will be raised after the Tribulation and just prior to the final judgements (Dan. 12:2). Tribulation saints would not have been saved at the time of the Rapture, so it would not include them. Those who believe and die during the Tribulation will be resurrected along with Old Testament saints. That the Rapture is only for Church saints can be seen in the fact that Scripture only refers to Church saints as being in Christ; no other group claims that status. It is only those who are in Christ who will experience the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

Timing of the Rapture

The timing of the Rapture, when it occurs in God’s plan for human history, is where the doctrinal rubber meets the road. There are several theories among Evangelicals regarding the timing of the Rapture.

Post-tribulational Position

Those who hold to a post-tribulational view believe that living believers will be raptured at the Second Coming of Christ following the Tribulation period. They point to what Scripture states are unmistakable signs (Matt. 24:3-31) which must occur before Christ returns. They then lump the Rapture and Second Coming into a singular event.

Mid-tribulational Position

There are some, though admittedly a minority, who believe the Church will be raptured 3 ½ years after the start of the Tribulation period, just prior to what is called the Great Tribulation. This will occur after the Antichrist breaks his treaty with Israel and prior to the greatest and most severe outpouring of God’s wrath on humanity.

Partial Rapture Position

There are a few proponents of what has come to be known as a partial rapture theory. Those who hold this position believe that only those spiritually mature saints who are actively watching and waiting for Christ’s return will be raptured at various times before and during the Tribulation period. Biblically, this is a completely untenable position and no serious scholars hold it.

Pre-tribulational Rapture Position

Those who hold to a pre-tribulational position believe that Christ will return prior to the time of the Tribulation to rapture both dead and living Church saints out of this world’s realm to meet Him in the air.

The pre-tribulational position interprets statements exempting Church saints from God’s wrath in the contexts of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and Revelation 3:10 to be that expression of His wrath that will be meted out on humanity during the Tribulation period. 

The Best Rapture Position

I believe the pre-tribulational position is the most biblically consistent position for several reasons.

It is the only position that sees the Millennial Kingdom as initially being populated by living, non-glorified believers (Jews and Gentiles alike) who survive the Tribulation. These saints repopulate the earth during the 1,000-year Kingdom Age in fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10-13:1 and Romans 11:26. This is the most consistent and literal interpretation of the passages that address the coming Kingdom on earth.

It is the only position which offers a clear distinction between the Rapture, the Second Coming, and the Tribulation period which is consistent with Scripture (cf. John 14:1-14; 1 Cor. 15:51-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Zech. 14; Matt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27; Rev. 19). Since there is no mention of the Church existing on earth during the Tribulation period (Rev. 4-18), it can safely be deduced that she is not present on earth during that time.

It is the only position which stresses imminency – the belief that Christ could return at any moment; therefore, believers should have an attitude of expectancy (Titus 2:13). Imminency shows that no preparatory warnings of impending tribulation exist for Church-age saints (cf. Acts 20:29-30; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3). The doctrine of imminency is vital to a proper understanding and distinguishing of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Simply put, imminency says that no one knows the time of the Rapture, therefore, it could happen at any moment. Nowhere in Scripture is the Rapture said to be preceded by any particular signs; it is completely signless. To believe that the Rapture must be preceded by certain world events is to convolute the Second Coming and Rapture. Christ said that no one except the Father knows the exact date and time for the Second Coming. If there was a clearly prophesied event that must happen prior to the Rapture, then one might be able to date the event and the Lord’s statements would be false.

God spent a great deal of time to tell us what was coming in His eschatological plan. Scripture encourages Church saints to look for and expect the Rapture; stating that it is at hand (Rom. 13:12; James 5:8-9; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 22:7, 12, 20; 1 Cor. 1:7-8; Phil. 3:20; Titus 2:13). However, when it came to the Church, the emphasis seems to be largely on imminency. Paul, on several occasions, included himself among the potential participants in the Rapture; expecting it in his lifetime (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-53; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Thess. 4:15-17).

It is the only position that is consistent with revelation regarding the Tribulation and the coming of the Antichrist. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 deals with the Second Coming of Christ, but right in the middle we are given a glimpse into the timing. The passage says that Christ’s return will not come until first a period of rebellion led by “the man of lawlessness” is revealed. This period of rebellion and the revelation of the man of lawlessness is generally accepted by scholars as a reference to the Tribulation period and the advent of the Antichrist. Verses 5-7 say that the man of lawlessness is currently being held back and will be continue to be held back until the proper time. Verse 7 states unequivocally that there is a person restraining, or holding back, the advent of the man of lawlessness and the period of rebellion (a.k.a. Tribulation and Antichrist). Paul uses the present active nominative singular masculine participle ὁ κατέχων (ho katechon, “the one who is holding back”). The single articular participle indicates that it is a particular individual person who is holding back the period of rebellion and the man of lawlessness. The verse goes on to say that this impending period of rebellion and the man of lawless will continue to be held back until the time when the one who is doing the holding back is “taken out of the way.” Literally, the passage reads, “only the one who is now holding it back (will hold it back) until he should be out of the middle.” The middle of what? In context, Paul has already said that the secret power of lawlessness is already at work in the world and has associated that lawlessness and the coming of the man of lawlessness with Satan’s character (v. 9). The one who is holding back the full throated rebellion of Satan and the coming of the man of lawlessness stands between the level to which Satan is working now and what is yet to come. The only person sufficient to this task is God himself. How then, can God remove himself from standing between the level of lawlessness now present in the world and the full revelation of Satan’s rebellion in mankind? The most logical and consistent interpretation is to see the one who is holding back Satan’s full rebellion and the coming man of lawlessness as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit’s presence in this world, during the Church Age, is His indwelling of Church saints. To take the Holy Spirit out of the way and remove Him from restraining full rebellion against God and allow the coming man of lawlessness, it makes sense that God would have to remove the Holy Spirit indwelt Church. If the coming period of rebellion (Tribulation) and the advent of the man of lawlessness (Antichrist) cannot come until the Holy Spirit who is currently standing in the way is removed as this passage mandates, and the manifestation of the Spirit today is in the indwelt Church, then the Church must be removed prior to these things happening. If the Church must be removed prior to these things happening, then no other rapture view (post, mid, or partial) sufficiently meets this requirement; leaving only a pretribulational timing for the Rapture.

It is the only position that correctly deals with Revelation 3:10. Perhaps the clearest and most undisputed passage regarding the Rapture is Revelation 3:10. Jesus says that because the Philadelphian church has been faithful they would be kept from “the hour of trial.” John uses the preposition ἐκ (ek). Though much hay has been made of the use of this preposition here, one cannot oversimplify it or trade it away etymologically. The force of the preposition is dependent on the force of the verb used with it and the context in which it is used. John uses a forceful, active verb (τηρήσω, tereso, “to keep, preserve”). The context involves a global period of time (“the hour of trial which is about to come on the whole earth”). This period of trial will test earth’s entire population. Given that Jesus promises to keep the Church from this entire period, rather than just a portion of it or just the trials themselves, indicates a more permanent method necessary to effect His promise. Thus, the preposition is legitimately translated as “out of” and indicates a permanent removal from the situation – a removal from the global period of trial which the remainder of Revelation describes as the Tribulation period. The clearest interpretation of Revelation 3:10, grammatically and contextually, is pretribulational.

Conclusion

 From the evidences examined above, the best and most biblically consistent view of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ is a pretribulational / premillennial position. Because of the Scripture’s emphasis on imminency, the New Testament Church, regardless of eschatological position, would do well to live in light of the impending return of Christ.