The church and the great tribulation: protection or escape?

Christ never promised His church a pretribulation rapture out of the world. On the contrary, in His supplication to His Father He says, " 'My prayer is not that you take them [His disciples and those who would afterward believe on Him through their witness] out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one'" (John 17:15).'

Protection in tribulation

The contrast between a rapture 'out of the world' and protection within the world 'from the evil one' is clear. Christ explicitly rejects in this text any thought of a rapture, either secret or public, that would remove His church from the earth while leaving the world to continue its existence inhabited only by the unrighteous. He requests from His Father something else: that God will " 'protect them from [terein . . . ek, "to guard," "to keep from"] the evil one.'" Jesus explained the necessity of God's keeping power: "'I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name'" (verse 11). God's keeping or protecting power is necessary because the church exists in the sphere of the evil one.

In Revelation 3:10, Christ promises the church in Philadelphia: " 'Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.'"

Robert H. Gundry comments perceptively on these texts both in John and in Revelation: "The plain implication is that were they absent from the world with the Lord, the keeping would not be necessary. Similarly, were the Church absent from the hour of testing, keeping would not be necessary."¹

J. F. Walvoord disagrees. He argues: "The thought of the Greek [terein ek] is to 'keep from,' not to 'keep in,' so that the Philadelphia church is promised deliverance before the hour [of trial] comes." ² This appeal to the thought of the Greek is refuted, however, by Jesus' use of the same Greek verb in John 17:15, where Christ places this expression ("to keep from") in full contrast with the idea of removing the church out of the world. Instead, Christ promises protection that results in a victorious rescue by God's keeping power. The emphasis is not on the period of tribulation, but on the victorious emergence of the saints out of it. Of the great, countless multitude before the throne of God, one of the elders speaking to John declares, " These are they who have come out of the great tribulation' " (Rev. 7:14). The stress is not on escape from the tribulation, but on a victorious emergence out of it after having passed through it.

To say, as Walvoord does, that Christ's promise in Revelation '3:10 indicates a rapture of the church before the hour, or time, of tribulation is to shift Christ's emphasis from the experience of the church within that time to the period of tribulation itself. But such a rationalistic distinction fails to catch the idiom in which an " 'hour'" refers not to mere passage of time but to a prominent experience or trial (see John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1). ³

Christ promises to keep the Philadelphia church from the eschatological hour of trial. If this indicates a pretribulation rapture of the church out of the world, why does not God's similar promise to ancient Israel concerning the Babylonian exile indicate a pretribulation rapture from the Babylonian trial? "' "It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it'"" (Jer. 30:7). This text merely promises deliverance from the time of Jacob's distress after Israel has gone through the exile. Neither does Revelation 3:10 require a pretribulation rapture for the Philadelphia church, but rather it offers divine protection within the testing tribulation and persecution.

Matthew 24

One of dispensationalism's main tenets is the doctrine of the imminence of the secret rapture and coming of Christ, "that is, it could happen any day, any moment." ⁴ Gundry explains more fully: "By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment." ⁵

Obviously such a doctrine of imminency creates unalterable tension with Biblical admonitions to watch for the apocalyptic signs heralding the approach of the day of the Lord. Walvoord even places us before the false dilemma of looking either for the pretribulation coming of Christ or to "look for signs." He states: "The exhortation to look for 'the glorious appearing of Christ to His own' (Titus 2:13) loses its significance if the tribulation must intervene first. Believers in that case should look for signs." ⁶

The idea of imminency is certainly incompatible with the belief in a posttribulation coming of Christ, while an expectant attitude toward the Lord's return is in full harmony with the Biblical admonitions to watch for the appointed signs. Luke, writing for the Gentile church, transmits Christ's outline of future events from the destruction of Jerusalem until His return, including signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as well as chaotic conditions and tribulation in the whole world (see Luke 21). Then the Lord advises: " 'When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near'" (verse 28).

According to Christ's warning, the church must look for His coming while they watch the predicted signs and experience the tribulation. Such signs do not harmonize with the imminency doctrine, but stimulate an attitude of looking forward to Christ's parousia after the events of the tribulation.

It may be a surprise to many to learn that except for verses 40 and 41, dispensationalism applies the whole prophetic dis course of Jesus in Matthew 24 to national Israel only and not to the church of Christ! Walvoord states, "The godly remnant of the tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the church." ⁷ However, Christ-believing Israelites become part of the church through baptism into the death of Christ. In order to eliminate the force of this conclusion, dispensationalism simply declares the whole chapter applicable to the Jews only. Thus, according to this view, " 'this gospel of the kingdom'" (verse 14) refers to the restoration of David's national kingdom, and the tribulation of the saints in connection with the fall of Jerusalem (verse 15-22) applies to Jewish Christians alone. Consequently, the rapture of the elect at the parousia of Christ (verse 31) involves only believing Israelites.

Yet the context of Matthew 24 clearly indicates that Christ addressed His prophetic discourse to His apostles, who stand unquestionably as representatives of His church, not of national Israel, now rejected by God as a theocracy (see chaps. 18:1548; 21:43; 23:37, 38; Eph. 2:20). Consequently, the whole Matthew 24 discourse relates to the church, and the saints in the tribulation predicted there belong to the church of which the apostles were the first witnesses. This is confirmed by the fact that both Mark and Luke repeat Christ's discourse for the Gentile church (Mark 13; Luke 21). The '"gospel of the kingdom'" is exactly the gospel Paul preached to both Gentiles and Jews (see Acts 20:25; 28:23, 31; Col. 1:13).

Christ's prophetic outline of future events in Matthew 24 does not contain a pretribulaion rapture of the church. On the contrary, the gathering of the elect by God's angels at Christ's parousia, at the sound of the trumpet (verse 31), is unmistakably the rapture of the church after the tribulation. " 'Immediately after the distress of those days'" " 'the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory'"(verses 29, 30). Luke's parallel description of this apocalyptic redemption confirms this idea: "'When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (Luke 21: 28).

Matthew 24:31, '"He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect,'" refers to both Jewish and Gentile Christians in the gospel church who will be gathered at Christ's coming after the preceding tribulation. The general term the elect is not restricted to Jews (see 1 Peter 1:1; 2:9). It is remarkable that dispensationalism wants to apply the first 31 verses of Matthew 24 exclusively to national Israel and yet singles out verses 40 and 41 as applying to the rapture of the church. Even if one wants to connect the expression, in these verses, " 'one will be taken'" to the rapture of the church (which has some linguistic support in John 14:1-3, where the root verb paralambanein is the same as that used in Matthew 24:40, 41), this rapture is still described in connection with the rapture of the elect (verse 31)—in other words, the posttribulation parousia of Christ. We concur, therefore, with the conclusion of G. E. Ladd, "The Rapture of the church before the Tribulation is an assumption; it is not taught in the Olivet Discourse." ⁸

Thessalonians and the rapture

A twofold confirmation of the posttribulation rapture can be found in Paul's words describing Christ's parousia as accompanied by "the voice of the archangel and . . . the trumpet call of God" (1 Thess. 4:16). The only archangel mentioned by name in the Bible is Michael (Jude 9), who is connected in Daniel 12:1, 2 with the resurrection of the saints after the time of distress, or final tribulation. J. F. Walvoord is sufficiently impressed with this testimony of the posttribulation deliverance and resurrection of the saints in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 25:8; 26:14-21) that he concedes "the point that the resurrection of Old Testament saints is after the tribulation." ⁹ He feels compelled, however, to divorce this resurrection completely from the translation and resurrection of the church, because "the Old Testament saints are never described by the phrase 'in Christ.'" ¹⁰

This literalistic argument is untenable, because Paul addresses most of his epistles to the saints, the typical Old Testament description for God's covenant people (cf. 1 Peter 2:9), and considers, as well, the Old Testament saints to be believers in the Messiah, or Christ (see 1 Cor. 10:1-4; cf. Heb. 11:24-26). Paul's deliberate statement to the Thessalonians that at the time of the rapture of the church the voice of the Archangel (Israel's Defender) will sound is a sufficiently clear confirmation that the resurrection of both the Old Testament and the New Testament saints will occur simultaneously as one resurrection (see John 5:28, 29). Walvoord calls this argument "not conclusive proof." But what else does Paul mean by saying that the voice of Israel's Defender, the Archangel, will be heard at the rapture and resurrection of Christ's _church? Paul's further statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that "the trumpet call of God" will sound at that time is additional support for the same idea. Isaiah predicted that "a great trumpet will sound" (Isa. 27:13) at the end of Israel's exile, or tribulation, and "in that day . . . you, O Israelites, will be gathered up one by one" (verse 12). This prophecy will be gloriously fulfilled, suggests Paul, at the dramatic parousia of Christ and the rapture of His church.

J. F. Walvoord also claims that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is "no support for posttribulationism" because Paul was only "demonstrating that the predicted Day of the Lord was still future," and that the Thessalonian Christians should not worry "that their present persecutions were those anticipated for this period (of the Day of the Lord)." ¹¹ A closer look at the Biblical passage and its context reveals, however, that much more is involved. Paul writes explicitly to correct a false teaching (apparently set forth under Paul's own name) that the day of the Lord had already begun or at least was so imminent that it could occur at any moment. This idea had alarmed some and led them to quit their daily work to become a burden on others (see chap. 3:6-15). Paul corrects this deception of an any-moment coming of the day of the Lord, or parousia, by reminding the church of His oral teaching about two preceding signs of apocalyptic evil that had to develop in history before the day of the Lord would take place (chap. 2:3-5). He makes it clear that at "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" not only will the church be "gathered to him" (verse 1) but also the lawless one (anti christ) will be destroyed "by the splendor of his coming" (verse 8). This clearly implies a posttribulation coming of Christ for His church!

The church and the antichrist

This conclusion is in perfect harmony with the conclusive testimony against a two-phase coming of Christ found in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10. Yet dispensationalism teaches that the church will be secretly gathered to Christ seven years before the antichrist is destroyed by Christ's parousia. Paul's clarifying remarks in 2 Thessalonians 2 effectively refute any such secret rapture. The occasion of our being gathered together to Christ, he says, will also involve simultaneously the destruction of the persecuting antichrist.

The efforts of dispensational writers to escape Paul's rather obvious teaching are curious. Some create an artificial distinction between "the day of Christ" (which they apply to the rapture) and "the day of the Lord" (in their view, the subsequent tribulation for Israel and the judgment of God). But how can the day of the Lord include tribulation by the antichrist when Paul declares that the lawless one will bring his apostasy before the day of the Lord?¹² "Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [apostasia] comes first [protos], and the man of lawlessness is revealed" (2 Thess. 2:3, R.S.V.).⁺

All accept the conclusion that this lawless one is the apocalyptic antichrist who will cause the great tribulation for the saints of God by his self-deification within the temple of God (verse 4). This apostasy is not an exclusive message for Jews, but is vitally relevant for Christians! Christians should know the antichrist so they need not be confused by a mistaken imminency of the parousia. Then they will watch and see the approach of the day beforehand and be ready for "the day of the Lord."

Evidently the Thessalonians had under stood from Paul's First Epistle that they were to be raptured before the tribulation (chap. 4:13-18). Gundry states, "The Thessalonians erroneously concluded that Christ's coming lay in the immediate future, with resultant cessation of work, fanatical excitement, and disorder." ¹³ Paul's answer in 2 Thessalonians 2 is a refutation of such an imminency doctrine. The apocalyptic tribulation must come first, before the parousia and rapture.

Another effort to avoid the posttribulation advent of Christ is a forced exegesis of he apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to denote not the apostasy, or rebellion, of the antichrist, but the departure, or rapture, of the church from earth before the antichrist and his tribulation arise. The simple fact is, however, that the term apostasia in the New Testament and in the Septuagint is used exclusively for religious defection, a departure from the faith. ¹⁴ It never refers to the departure of the church from earth. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 it is correctly translated as "the rebellion" both in the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version. The definite article the before rebellion points to a well-known apostasy about which Paul had informed the Thessalonians earlier (verse 5) and which he now explains more fully in the following verses, especially verses 4,9, and 10. The apocalyptic apostasy, says Paul, will be a deliberate departure from the apostolic faith, a rebellion against God, led by the antichrist. This is the time of the great tribulation for God's faithful people. Paul urges the church to watch for this developing apostasy so that the parousia, or day of the Lord, will not surprise her like a thief (1 Thess. 5:1-6).

Finally, some dispensationalists insist that the mysterious Restrainer of the antichrist (see 2 Thess. 2:6) must be the Holy Spirit working through the church. Thus the Restrainer being "taken out of the way" (verse 7), so that the antichrist will be revealed, would point to the rapture of the church out of the world before the antichrist brings his tribulation on the earth. But R. H. Gundry has convincingly shown that this dispensational exegesis has no foundation either in the immediate context or in the New Testament as a whole. Even if the Holy Spirit will be ultimately withdrawn from an impenitent, wicked world, this does not prove that the church of Christ Jesus will be evacuated from earth to heaven "in a retrogressive step to the Old Testament economy." ¹⁵

It is certainly a "fantastic assumption," as J. Wilmot says, for dispensational eschatology to assert that in the absence of the Holy Spirit and the church, and within the "seven" years of the antichrist's reign, "a great multitude which no man can number" shall be converted to Christ from among all nations' Paul's eschatology in 1 and 2 Thessalonians places both the glorious rapture of the church and the simultaneous destruction of the antichrist at the dramatic parousia (see especially 2 Thess. 2:1, 8). This is Paul's teaching of a posttribulation parousia and rapture, based on Christ's outline of events for the Christian dispensation in Matthew 24. ¹⁶ When Christians trust in the teaching that they will be raptured to heaven before the persecution of the antichrist, how will they be prepared for the coming final test of faith? The danger of pretribulationism is that it instills in the hearts of God's people a false hope and thus fails to prepare the church for her final crisis.