A REASONABLE DOUBT
Examining the pretribulation rapture view
This portion of the book is intended for those who have studied, (or who are fairly familiar with) the pretrib view of eschatology. For those who are beginning an inquiry into end times events, or who don't have an understanding of the pretribulational rapture view, you may want to skip this last section of the book, it will only cause you more confusion. For those who do read on, let me state my purpose for adding this section to the book. Having graduated with a masters degree from a seminary (which will remain anonymous) that is a ‘pillar’ in the pretrib ecclesiastical community, I have been taught the complexities of the 'fundamental' beliefs in the pretribulation rapture theology. This seminary has produced some ‘heavy hitters’ out there. When it comes to having a systematic theology down - they’ve got it. Unfortunately, the whole time I was attending seminary, studying these end times concepts, I kept saying to myself “...but something’s wrong. This doesn’t make sense”. I'm of the notion that, when it comes to believing a certain doctrine, if you have a “reasonable doubt - search it out”. It wasn’t until a few years later, in the early 90's, that I began a serious study into eschatology, and a verse by verse, precept by precept examination into end times. I took all the pertinent verses, started making notes in the margins, and came up with the conclusions depicted in this book. Since the conclusions I came up with didn't have the magnitude of followers as the pretrib view does, I decided to compare the two views and include this section to the book. Below I have listed 5 of the basic pretrib beliefs, (reasons why I was told and taught to believe in the pretribulation rapture), and an answer to why I think they don't make sense.
1. The Church will not experience the wrath of God.
This has been the foremost objection for not believing in the pretribulational view. The argument behind this objection is based on the idea that the Church will not experience the wrath of God during a period, associated by most people, as the Great Tribulation. This misconception about the Great Tribulation, however, has already been answered in a previous section, but in case you missed it somewhere along the line let me reiterate; “The Great Tribulation is not the wrath of God and the Church will not be on the earth for the Retribution of our Lord - the Day of the LORD wrath!” As shown earlier in this book [chpt 1], through cross referencing and a word study, the tribulation period depicts a time when the saints will be undergoing persecution, not when God pours out His wrath upon the earth. But for those of you who were not satisfied with the earlier explanations given, let's look at it from a chronological viewpoint. The opening scripture passages used in the beginning of this text were all taken from the Old Testament and they all spoke of the Day of the LORD as a time of vengeance, wrath, and destruction. So, we know that the Day of the LORD equals judgment. Verses like II Thess 2:1-2, Rev 3:3, and I Thess 5:2 tell us that when the Day of the LORD occurs it will indeed be when Jesus returns to earth (Jesus' return is the Day of the LORD). We also know, from passages like Is 13:6-8, Joel 2:1, Zep 1:7, I Thess 5:3, Matt 24:37-38, and Luke 17:26-30, that when this day occurs the world will be eating, drinking, and carrying on about their normal businesses, saying “peace and safety”, unaware of the impending doom awaiting them. So, to summarize the above conditions, we are told that the world will be 'partying' until sudden destruction comes upon them as Jesus returns the second time. Remember what I stated in the summary section, “There will be no divine wrath before the Day of the LORD! The Day of the LORD is the time of wrath." Now, here's the catch. Matt 24:29-30 and Mark 13:24-26 specifically tell us that the return of Jesus will be after the tribulation of those days. Therefore, the tribulation of those days cannot be any type of judgment since the Day of the LORD has not happened yet and the world is still in their 'party' mode! How can any kind of wrath be poured out upon the nations before the Lord returns? To me the logical unfolding of events scripture gives concerning the Day of the LORD is conspicuous. If the tribulation of those days is the persecution of the saints then there are no discrepancies between the scriptures. However, to believe the tribulation is the wrath of God will cause considerable problems when trying to form a doctrine.
2. The Church has to be gone for God to complete His promises to Israel.
A fundamental element in the pretrib view is that God must deal with Israel as a nation separately, and the Church must be gone during this period. The scripture verses used to support this argument are Romans 11:25, referring to the hardening of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and Revelation 11:2, referring to the trampling by the Gentiles, (although neither of these passages says anything directly regarding ‘the Church’ being gone prior to Israel's salvation). This idea of the Church having to be gone was briefly touched upon before, but now I would like to make several comments upon this subject and hopefully I won't sound too sardonic. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all describe Jesus' Olivet Discourse with His disciples. As we read earlier in Matthew 24, Jesus is foretelling events that will precede His return. The predominant belief today is that Jesus was speaking to Jews only, and that the Gentile believers of the last days have already been raptured from the earth. Proponents of this view sight the two specific references of “those who are in Judea”, and “on the Sabbath” as exclusive Jewish recipients of these warnings. However, to fully understand the conditions for this prophetic announcement from Jesus we need to investigate the scriptures. The circumstances surrounding Matthew 24 are initiated by a statement made from Jesus at the beginning of the chapter. Jesus tells His disciples that the stones of this temple, they had just left, were to be torn down. The disciples (intrigued by this future, prophetic statement) then ask Him when the stones would be torn down, and what will be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age. Jesus does not address these questions as individual questions, but rather collectively, as if they were all related, thus validating the fact that His return will mark the end of the age. We also see, by Israel's history, that Jesus was referencing a double fulfillment of prophecy. In theology this double fulfillment of prophecy is known as typeology, or what we know as ‘history repeating itself’. History shows that the prophecy of Daniel nine's ‘abomination’ was immediately fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, and the destruction of the temple was accomplished by Antiochus Epiphanes in second century B.C. Jesus now informs His disciples that this prophecy of Daniel is an 'ongoing prophecy', and that the prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled, but will again be fulfilled at another time. Jesus answers the disciples questions by showing them that what happened in 175 B.C. would also happen in 70 A.D. and then again in 20?? A.D., and that the warning He was giving to the Jews of 70 A.D. would also apply to those of 20?? A.D. There was no need to separate the questions since the situations would, and will again be, equivalent. History tells us that in 70 A.D. General Titus of Rome conquered Jerusalem and the temple was indeed destroyed and all the stones were torn down in search of gold that had melted between the stones. Titus of Rome, and the destruction of Jerusalem, was then a 'type' for the prophecy of the Antichrist when he invades the temple and declares himself God. In other words, the prophecy for 70 A.D. is a foreshadowing for the end time prophecy. In Matthew 24 Jesus sights Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation as a key to, not only his return, but of the temple destruction in 70 A.D. Luke 22:20-21, however, doesn't mention Daniel's prophecy, but apparently Luke's gospel emphasizes Jesus' warnings to those who will be around for the destruction in 70 A.D. In this case, speaking of the immediate destruction in 70 A.D., Jesus says for those in Judea to flee to the mountains and for those in the country to not go into the city. Here He is referring to an immediate time when Titus will surround Jerusalem with his armies, and also of a future time when the Antichrist’s armies surround Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem happens to be the focal point for all these questions asked Jesus would naturally be addressing those in Judea, but the warnings should not be taken as a restriction exclusively to those in Judea! Remember, when the son of perdition sets himself up in the temple to be worshiped as a god he is going to have all the attributes of Satan, and the first group of people he is going after (see Rev 12:13-15) will be the Jews. The Judean area is surrounded by mountains, and when the Antichrist proclaims himself as God, in the holy temple in Jerusalem, the Judean Jews will be, in proximity, the closest and first ones impacted by his blasphemous monarchy. Thus, Jesus instructs those in Judea to flee to their mountains. However, when the Antichrist is not able to massacre the remnant of Israel (Rev 12:16-17) he then goes after us! I have no problem with the fact that Jesus is first warning “those in Judea”, just with the fact that He is only warning those in Judea, because the Church is now supposedly gone. Jesus may be warning the Judean Jews to run for their lives, but He is also making an aphorism that if you "live by the hills - head for the hills". Remember, Jesus was speaking to all followers, as shown by His qualitative remark “for My Name's sake”.
Now, let me get back to my original point. If Jesus' warnings were to His immediate followers about 70 A.D.'s destruction, and to future generations about the end times destruction, what mandates the fact that the Church must be gone before this prophecy can be fulfilled? Does the existence of the Church being upon the earth limit the omnipotence of God? If God cannot finish His promises to Israel because of the inconvenience of a Church being upon the earth then what does this say for the power of God? It is interesting to note that in 70 A.D. there was a Church in existence, (also undergoing persecution) when Israel was having prophecies fulfilled. The Church was also around in 1948 when, believed by many Christian scholars, another direct prophecy concerning Israel was fulfilled and Israel again became a nation. The circumstances in 70 A.D. will be very similar to those that will occur at the end, and God's prophecies and plans for Israel will be accomplished, even if the Church is still on the earth.
Another argument I've heard that Jesus was speaking to ‘Jews only’ is found in Matthew 24, verses 32-33. Here Jesus says, “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors!" There are those who say that Jesus here is speaking strictly about Israel because of the association with the fig tree. Symbolically and figuratively the fig tree (supposedly) represents the nation Israel throughout the Bible. There may be many of you who have heard this from pastors or friends, but when we examine the scriptures we find that this isn’t always the case. (Rev 6:13, James 3:12, and John 1:48 to sight just a few.) But even if we follow this analogy of trees symbolically representing nations then we should read the parallel account of Matthew 24:32-33, which is Luke 21:29. This verse says, “Behold the fig tree, and all the other trees”. Well, if the pre-tribbers are going to make trees symbolic of the nations of the earth, then I figure I’m included in "...and all the other trees”. (I think I’m a bonsai tree ... short and round).
One final mention about pretrib misconceptions, concerning Israel and the Church, deals with the section of verses in Matt 24:29-31, and the corresponding section of Mark 13:24-27. Here it talks about events after the tribulation and the signaling of the Day of the LORD (the sun darkening, the moon not giving it's light, etc.) up to the point of the angels gathering the 'elect'. The pretrib theologians now have a predicament about this gathering, since it clearly states it's after the tribulation. What I'm hearing from them is that these 'elect', who are gathered, are actually the 'elect' from the nation of Israel, and that the Church has already been raptured (gathered) prior to this. Well, I have a few concerns about this teaching. First, according to Rev 12:15-16, Israel was being persecuted by the Dragon, but fled into the wilderness where the earth helped her, all during the last half of the 70th week. The Dragon was enraged with the Woman, but wasn't able to destroy her because she was given wings to 'fly to her place in the wilderness'. So, if we see Israel in her place in the wilderness during this last 3 1/2 year period, then why does Mark 13:26 say the angels will gather the elect from the farthest parts around the earth? How could Israel have gotten 'out in the open' and away from her place so quickly and reached all around the world in that short time span? Another problem I have with this view comes from reading events in Rev 7. I read that there are angels who have the power to harm the earth, but are told "not to harm the land, or sea, or trees" until there is a seal placed on the servants of God...the 144,000 (in other words, the Jewish remnant). My question is, "Why would they need this seal of protection against the damage from the angels if they are supposed to be 'raptured' and would be removed out of the danger zone anyway?" Revelation 7:3-8 clearly states, as in the Passover, there is danger coming from angels and the servants of God (the Jewish remnant) need to be sealed on their foreheads to be spared. This means that those 144,000 will remain on the earth during the wrath of God, only they will be protected because of the seal, as they were at Passover...and there's no mention of them being taken up, away from the danger. The last problem I have with this pretrib belief (that the 'elect' being gathered is actually Israel) is this. Reading the Olivet Discourse from Matt 24 and Mark 13 we see where Jesus gives us a chronology of the events leading up to the Day of the LORD. Jesus talks about famines, earthquakes, wars, even the abomination that causes desolation. It's funny that He never mentions the Bride uniting with the Bridegroom (Himself). Why would He mention famines and earthquakes, but somehow fail to mention the Body of Christ, HIS Bride, coming together with Him at the marriage supper? The only answer is...He doesn't mention it because it doesn't happen before the Day of the LORD, and the 'elect' being gathered by the angels are His chosen ones, the Church and Bride of Christ.
To wrap up this topic let me get down to the heart of the problem by pointing out the dichotomy that pretribbers are trying to fabricate. The proponents of this view are basically making exaggerated distinctions between a Jew and a Christian, as if there are two distinct salvation processes that God has ordained, and as if the Church is strictly a "Gentile" institution. Let me make a point here about something. If I were permitted to address the Church as an 'organzation' (with members), then let me say, "The Church is a Jewish Organization." The Apostles (founding fathers) of the Church were all Jewish, the first converts - Jewish, the first members of the Church - Jewish, the first 'Home Church' was in Jerusalem, and the 'Head' of the Church - Jesus himself - was Jewish. The Gentiles were just 'outsiders' that are now allowed into the family of God (and we took the ball and ran with it.) But, the pretribbers are saying that the Church, which is the Gentile Christian cache (part of God’s chosen) has to be removed so God can complete His promises to His other cache, Israel (also part of God’s chosen). Well, if this is true let me ask the question, “Which elect takes priority with God?” “Does a Christian deserve special treatment and therefore will not go through the persecution supposedly intended for Israel, or does being one of the original chosen people deserve special treatment?” I understand that, in the Old Testament, there is the concept of a person being either Jew or Gentile. If you are a Jew then you are God's chosen race, and if a Gentile pagan then you are those whom God will judge. In the New Testament, however, we see the dichotomy of believer or unbeliever. Over and over again in the New Testament we are told that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, and the teachings of Jesus tell us that what He has cleansed (i.e. the Gentiles) is now clean. Now, it is true that we Gentile believers are wild olive branches grafted in, but are we not also heirs with Christ and also sons? And claiming to be an Israelite does not automatically qualify you for redemption. In Romans we read that not all Israel is Israel, nor are they children just because they are offspring of Abraham. Again in Isaiah we read that only the remnant will be saved. These remnant ones are those believing in the Messiah, as shown from Revelation 14:4. And here’s another question, "Does being a Jew, and a descendent of Abraham (with all the corresponding promises) mean that if you become a Christian then you give up your rights to your Hebrew heritage and do not get the chance to see Israel’s prophesies fulfilled because you'll end up being raptured?" Remember, Paul, who was a Hebrew of Hebrews, told Gentile believers that "we who are alive and remain”, as if he would be raptured right along with them. God is going to complete His promises to the nation of Israel, but they are not a special, separate elect, and they are not saved apart from their faith and belief in God and Jesus the Messiah! (see Acts 4:12) There is prophetically a different course of events and a different outcome on the Day of the LORD for the Church and for Israel, but the end result for both groups is salvation through Jesus the Messiah.
3. The Church is raptured when the Holy Spirit departs the earth.
This is one of the topics where my sarcasm will bleed through. I can't believe the justification pretribbers make here for a pretrib theology...but here's the way their rationalization goes. This view, stated above, says that the Holy Spirit is taken from the earth, and the Church (the embodied temple of the Holy Spirit) will be taken along with Him before the Antichrist comes into power, thus exempting the Church from the Antichrist's tyranny. The reasoning behind this is II Thessalonians 2:6-7, which says, “and now you know what is restraining, that in time he may be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.” The pretrib interpretation of this verse is - the Holy Spirit departs the earth and takes the believers with Him before the man of "lawlessness" comes into power. The logic behind this interpretation is simple. A reason is needed for the Church to be removed from the earth before the Great Persecution begins, and this verse is the closest one they can find that remotely says anything about moving from one place to another before that time. However, taking a closer look at this verse we see that the pretrib scholars have made three assumptions. First, the Greek pronoun for He in verse 7 is 'o (masculine pronoun), and even though it doesn't really say it is the Holy Spirit spoken of here (as opposed to Michael the archangel, Jesus, or some other force from God) most pretrib scholars assume the Holy Spirit is the subject of this passage. I can concur with them on this, although I can see where there could be sound arguments that it might indeed be Michael the archangel, according to Revelation 12 and Daniel 10 and 12. I have no problem, however, with the idea of the Holy Spirit restraining the son of lawlessness. What I do have a problem with, (assumption number two), is the fact that the above objection says the Holy Spirit has to be completely removed, so that He must depart into heaven and therefore the Church has to go with Him. They take this view from the last part of verse 7, which says, "...only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." Let me spend a few minutes here doing a word study (since this verse is one of the pillars in pretrib theology), and let's see exactly what this verse says. If any of you have ever studied Greek before, now is the time to break out the lexicons and interlinears. In verse 7 the last four words read (in the Greek) heos ek mesou genatai, translated in most versions "until He is taken out of the way”. In the Greek ek mesos actually means 'out of the midst', 'out from among', or 'out of the way'. The verb context "taken out" is slightly misleading. There really is no verb used which says "taken up, taken out, or taken away". In the New Testament the two main Greek verbs (and forms of them) for the verb taken are 'airo' and 'lambano'. Neither is used here. The only verb in that phrase is a form of the verb ginomai = to be. An example of how a similar phrase can use a 'taken' verb is in Colossians 2:14, where Paul uses the phrase ek mesou, and a form of the verb 'airo''. The last part of that verse says, "...and He has taken it out of the way." However, no verb for 'taken' is used at the end of verse 7 in II Thessalonians 2. Actually, the way the phrase would read in the Greek is “and he will continue to restrain until out of the midst he comes, or until out of the midst it happens”. The Greek phrase ek mesos is depicted in this verse as a stepping aside, as if someone is standing in a doorway or the middle of a room not letting you by, and then that person steps aside to let you go past. I have found 3 translations that render this passage with better accuracy than most translations.
(ALT) For the secret [or, mystery] of lawlessness is already supernaturally working, only the one [or, the One] now restraining [will continue to do so] until he [or, He] comes [or, appears] out of [the] midst.
(NLT) For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way.
(LITV) For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst.
This phrase, ek mesos, doesn't imply being removed completely, as if the Holy Spirit could completely vanish off the face of the earth. But, let's go one step further in this line of logical thought and let's say the Holy Spirit is completely removed and the Church is taken out with Him. If the above objection is true then the Church is in for a most spectacular ride. We'll assume the activity of the Holy Spirit in this matter is equivalent to the 'physical' state of the Church, (since the Church is the embodiment of the Spirit), and the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth and taken up into heaven. (So now the Holy Spirit and the Church are no longer on earth.) Well, one major question I have about this whole line of logic is this, “Where do all of those converted tribulation saints come from if the Holy Spirit is gone?” It sort of confuses me how someone can be converted to Christ apart from the working of the Holy Spirit. Maybe these tribulation saints are a special exception to the rule (assumption number three). If the Holy Spirit does convict these special tribulation saints unto repentance of sins, however, then that means the Holy Spirit came back down to earth ... and therefore the Church must be back too!! (What a ride!!) I'm not sure if the proponents of this view have thought this through to its final conclusion, or if they have decided to make an exception to their own doctrine and say that the Church follows the Holy Spirit, sometimes.
4. The belief in a Post-tribulational view denies the immanency of the Rapture.
Well, this one is going to open a giant can of worms. The objection I get the most flack from is this one. Stated briefly, the pretribulational view holds to the belief that Jesus could rapture His church at any moment, unexpectedly, secretly, and without warning. These proponents use the phrase Imminent Return to mean ‘any moment’ rather than ‘definitely will happen’. If someone believes in a posttribulation view, however, then this ‘any moment’ theory cannot be believed, since we will have to endure nearly 3 1/2 years of persecution prior to the return of the Lord. The posttrib view I present in this book maintains that the rapture of the Church occurs just after Jesus appears on the Day of the LORD. I happen to believe that the Lord will not come back "at any moment", not until after the apostasy and the persecution of the saints has run its course. Almost every believer I know has been taught, either from the pulpit or from movies, that Jesus can come back at any moment and that we can be raptured up without a hint of warning. The problem in believing this way, which may or may not surprise most of you, is that if you believe the rapture could happen at any moment then you believe the rapture will not take place on the Day of the LORD and the return of Jesus! Put simply, the rapture is not when Jesus comes back. Scholars of the pretrib view will tell you they don't believe the rapture is synonymous with the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be at the same time, you see, because of the numerous conflicts between scriptures. (i.e. Matt 24:27 - the Lord will come back as the lightning flashes from the east to the west; Rev 1:7 - where He will come in the clouds and every eye will see Him; Rev 6:16 - where the kings of the earth cry for the rocks to fall on them; II Tim 4:1 - where the Lord comes back to judge the living and the dead). The pretribulationists explain the time scheme of the Rapture by saying that Jesus' return will be in two phases, when He starts out to return to the earth and partially returns (rapturing the Church but not fully descending unto His Second Advent) and later, after the salvation of Israel, when He completely returns to the earth (the judgment of the nations). In this way the pretribs can say the initial return of Jesus can be imminent and any moment, and still find justification in His glorious return with the clouds, (even though He will be hanging out in the clouds with His saints for at least 3 1/2 years while the Antichrist rules the world). The verses the pretrib advocates use to support this imminent view are: Titus 2:13, Matt 24:42-44, Mark 13:32-35, I Thessalonians 5:2, and II Peter 3:10-14, to sight just a few. This looks pretty impressive at first glance, but upon reading these verses one will notice that they are in reference to the Day of the LORD coming as a thief in the night! Well, by their own admission the rapture is not the Day of the LORD, so how can they site verses that speak of the sudden coming of the Day of the LORD when they don't even believe this is speaking of the rapture? And what about the commands of Jesus to "watch" for His return. Jesus tells us in Luke 21:31 "...so you also, when you see these things happening", as if there is something we are to watch for, and see! Not suddenly walk out to your car one day, get ready to open the door and then mysteriously disappear with no warning whatsoever. The pretrib view desperately wants to make this 'logical' jump. They say, "Jesus is going to return; no one knows the day or hour; therefore He could return at any moment." This is bad logic and bad math. Jesus is going to return, and no one knows the day or hour, but we do know that it will be "after these things!"
I have to insert a personal note here to pretrib pastors and/or pretrib speakers reading this book. Too often I have heard you associate the time of the rapture and the time of His return as interchangeable, making comments like, "...when we see Him coming in the clouds with power and great glory to take us home..." as if you believed (like I do) that the two events are simultaneous. Then I will hear "...the glorious appearing of Jesus could happen today, tomorrow, or anytime...", and then I think to myself what you actually meant to say was 'the rapture', (not His glorious appearing), could happen at any moment. I will admit that, at first glance, Titus 2:13, which states, “... looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” seems to indicate the Lord's return could be at any moment, but this should be our confidence and hope during times of severe persecution. (This verse is not speaking just of the rapture but of His return, as qualified by the expression “glorious appearing”). We believers are definitely exhorted to look for the return of Jesus, but this expectation is an abiding hope and longing for the day when He will return and we will be transformed into His glorious likeness. (see Rom 8:22-25) The apostolic writers of the New Testament certainly encourage Christians to endorse this hope, but if we could go back in time and ask the apostles, at different points in their ministry, if Jesus' return could happen at any moment, we would get answers something like this. “He will return, but not until I have suffered for His name's sake (Acts 9:16) and not until I have been a witness (Acts 23:11) in Rome.” “Yes, His return will be soon, but not until I'm an old man (John 21:18) and have to be led to my death.” These apostles believed in a soon return of Jesus, but they also knew that certain events must take place first, as prophesied by the Lord. Now, knowing that these personal events must be fulfilled what if they had suspected that another, more monumental prophecy must be fulfilled before the return of our Lord; let's say something like “...this gospel must first be preached to the entire world and then the end will come?” The apostles certainly had ample chances to say that an "any moment" rapture could happen but they never did. I would think that if Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had thought that the Rapture could have happened at any moment he would have written I Cor 15:51-52 a little bit differently. Instead of saying, “We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”, he would have said, “We shall all be changed, at any moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” This passage tells us what the Rapture will be like (instantaneous) but not when it will occur. As a matter of fact, the one overwhelming scripture reference that states when the Rapture will occur has already been mentioned (II Thess 2:1-4), where it plainly states the coming of our Lord and our gathering together with Him (the rapture) will not happen until after the apostasy takes place and the Antichrist is revealed. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, is reassuring them that, just because they were undergoing severe tribulation, this didn't mean the Lord had already returned. (They were unfortunately pre-tribbers). Paul had to bring them back to reality by basically saying, “Look guys, I long for His return as much as you do, but He is not going to be back until after the apostasy and the son of perdition is revealed - who declares himself God while he sits in the temple (which as we know has to be rebuilt) as God.” This verse includes a definite 'time factor' in it for the return of Jesus. But let's look at another verse which mentions a time reference for when the Lord returns. As we have previously seen, the rapture occurs almost simultaneously (right on the heals of) the resurrection of the dead, as shown in I Thessalonians 4:14-17, and both groups shall meet the Lord in the air. This is the first resurrection, and we are told when this resurrection will occur. Revelation 20:4-5 reads:
Rev 20:4-5 "Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years was completed). This is the first resurrection."
Here we are told that the participants in the first resurrection include those who did not worship the beast or take his mark. John, in this vision, is shown a specific group of individuals (souls), specifically pointing to this group as being beheaded, and not taking the mark. These 'souls', mentioned above, should not be taken as exclusive, (meaning only these souls are the ones resurrected unto the thousand year reign), but rather inclusive, showing that all who have fallen asleep believing in Jesus will be resurrected [see 1 Cor 15], including those who were beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast, as John's vision indicates. We can see from this verse, therefore, that the first resurrection could only have occurred after the beast's oppression of the believers. If the Rapture of the Church coincides with the first resurrection, and the first resurrection occurs after the beast's persecution of the saints, then we know the Church will not be raptured until after her members are given the chance to refuse the mark and become martyred, (or in the case above - beheaded!)
To wrap up this section, I want to make clear my views about looking for the Lord's return and His glorious appearing. We believers should hope and pray for the speedy return of our Lord Jesus Christ and still know that He has given us preceding signs of His return. He is coming quickly (Amen) and with the ongoing fulfillment of warning signs transpiring every day we should be all the more diligent to be faithful servants for the Lord's kingdom.
5. The saints persecuted by the Antichrist, are the ‘tribulation saints’.
For those of you who have never heard of the 'tribulation saints', or you're not quite sure where they fit in the pretrib theology, let me give a brief background on them. In Revelation 7:9-17, as we have discussed earlier, John sees a great multitude robed in white, and the elder with John tells him that these in white are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation. Well, if you believe the Church has already been raptured prior to this you have some explaining to do to rationalize where all these saints came from. The argument given, to logically explain these saints, goes something like this. “Isn't it only logical, when the inhabitants of the earth discover that millions and millions of Christians have disappeared, that they will become convinced of the error of their ways and turn to God?” Well, in response to this argument there is one point to take note on. The assumption that the world will realize that God was right and they were wrong when the conspicuous disappearance of millions of raptured Christians occurs is purely speculation and is based solely on a preconceived pre-tribulational position, with no scriptural basis. As a matter of fact, according to scriptures, the opposite should happen. In II Thessalonians 2:11 it says that God will send them a strong delusion that they should believe the big lie of the Antichrist and not perceive any messages from God. Also, according to Revelation 7:14 there are (I'm speculating here) hundreds and hundreds of millions of tribulation saints martyred. (I'm basing this on Rev. 5 and Rev. 9 where John had counted a number of ten thousand times ten thousand, equaling 100 million, and the number of the horsemen being 200 million...but here it's a number higher than that). This great number is not far fetched if you believe the existing Church is spoken of here, just prior to the return of Jesus. If His return is several years from now there will be, barring a global plague or world war, approximately 10 billion people on the earth. Well, if only 3% of the population is Christian that's a whopping 300 million believers (give or take a few million). This number in Rev 7 is a number no one can count, but if the number is in the hundreds of millions then that's a lot of people converted in only the brief, short time of 3 1/2 years. (Approximately 2 conversions every second. That would definately qualify for the greatest evangelical movement the world had ever known).
But a more serious note should be taken regarding this 'tribulation saints' view. Let me take a moment here to discuss a very, very dangerous and heretical teaching that spawns from what I just said above. I have heard from the pulpit that "...there will be more Christians who will be saved during the Tribulation period than those who are raptured." And from this teaching I heard a pastor friend say to the congregation that if you miss the rapture you will still have a second chance to accept the Lord before His final return. This friend then went on to say that it will be bad for those who miss the rapture and have to go through the tribulation period, but keep the faith, because God will eventually forgive you. People, this is a dangerous teaching!! The truth is, when the Lord returns to judge the nations, those who are not raptured and who have taken the mark are doomed. There are no "second chance saints" for those who defy God and who have rejected Christ. This tribulation saints heresy, however, says that if you didn't believe in Jesus before His first return, then you will know that He is real and therefore you should believe in Him when you witness the disappearance of all the Christians. (Like they say, seeing is believing...never mind about faith). According to this view God is going to 'prove' His existence, and then take all offers.
Let me now point out several other problems with believing in this view. Rev 13:8 says “everyone whose name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life will take the mark.” Now, supposedly the Church, those whose names are in the Book of Life, has already been raptured. So, if everyone whose name is in the Lamb's Book of Life has been raptured, and everyone whose name is not in the Book of Life takes the mark, where do all these millions and millions of tribulation saints come from, and why were they not raptured along with the rest of the Church? Another problem I have, which triggered one of those "reasonable doubt" questions, is why is God rapturing the Church in the first place? Why have a rapture, and then have the tribulation saints? God now apparently wants to start the Church all over again after He has taken out His ‘first round draft picks’, because these tribulation saints in Rev 7:14, who are washed in the blood of the Lamb, are certainly also part of the Church. Why would God take out the Church, if He is to deal with Israel as a separate entity, only to have the Church start all over again and create the same problem He had before He initially took the Church out? According to this argument the Lord, for some reason, has decided to gather His people up, only to have them start all over again, just to gather them up again! (Maybe there weren't enough angels to handle the job right the first time). Then I’ve heard it said that the tribulation saints will be ‘purged’, because they will have to endure the wrath of God, since they missed the rapture. But who could believe these tribulations saints would have to endure both the wrath of God and the Beast's persecution? Speaking of which, how can anyone believe the wrath of God and the reign of the Antichrist could happen simultaneously? This would mean that while the Antichrist tries to run his kingdom the wrath of God is pouring down upon the inhabitants of the earth. This concept is absolutely absurd to me, but this is what the pretrib theology teaches! It is impossible to have a kingdom run efficiently and have business transactions occurring daily when the wrath of God is being poured out upon the earth. Can you actually imagine trying to believe the world is going to maintain its everyday practices while in the midst of devastating circumstances? (Let's use our imagination here and picture what this would be like.) Say we're at a car dealership and a customer, who has his new 'mark' on his hand, says to the salesman, “Hey bud, can I buy that new car over there?" [crunch] "YIKES, never mind...that hundred pound hailstone just smashed it to bits!” (O.K.- maybe I'm going a little overboard here with sarcasm, but I think you get the picture). As far as I'm convinced there aren't any justifiable verses showing the reign of the Antichrist's one-world government thriving while the wrath of God is being poured out upon the earth. And there are no good explanations for the martyrs in Rev. 7 except for one ... it's the martyrs of the Church who are still on the earth during the persecution of the Antichrist.