Partial Rapture teaches that only those believers who are
“watching” and “waiting” for the Lord’s return will be found worthy to escape the
terrors of the Tribulation by being taken in the Rapture.
B. Supporters
of This View
Apparently this view originated with Robert Govett in
1835 in his book Entrance into the Kingdom: The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture.
It was also taught by J.A. Seiss (The Apocalypse [New York: Cook, 1865]), G.H. Pember
(The Great Prophecies of the Centuries concerning the Church [London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1895]), G.H. Lang (The Revelation of Jesus Christ [London: Paternoster,
1948], and by the Local Church Movement (Witness Lee, Revelation, Recovery Version
[Anaheim, California: Living Stream Ministry, 1976]).
C. Theological
Framework of This View
1. Salvation. Advocates hold to salvation by
grace and eternal security of the believer, but interpret debated passages on security
as Arminians do with this important exception: the danger facing the believer who
fails is not perdition but millennial disinheritance. Every believer has the right
to inherit the kingdom, but this can be forfeited through disobedience.
2.
Sanctification. Often partial rapturists give strong emphasis to sanctification and
holiness. They may teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is connected with power
for witnessing and that the filling and indwelling of the Spirit are for some believers
only, rather than for all. This emphasis carries over into their view of the Rapture;
namely, that only spiritual believers will be raptured to escape the Tribulation.
3.
First resurrection. The first resurrection is viewed as a resurrection for reward
for spiritual believers, rather than for all. Believers who are not overcomers will
be raised after the Millennium. Therefore, that second resurrection (usually seen
as involving only unbelievers) will include both believers and unbelievers.
D.
Outline of This View
Partial rapturists teach that there will be several
times for the Rapture and resurrection of overcomers.
I. Before. Just before
the beginning of the Tribulation mature living saints will be translated and mature
dead saints will be raised.
2. During. Then during the seven years of Tribulation
other Church Age saints who were unprepared for the initial Rapture will be raptured
at various intervals. These are seen in Revelation 7:9, 14; 11:2; 12:5 (the man child
includes believers); 16:15 (a Rapture to deliver watching believers from the war
of Armageddon); and a final Rapture at the end.
3. After. At the close of
the Millennium there will be a resurrection of believers who missed these earlier
resurrections of rewards along with the resurrection of unbelievers. The believers
will enter the everlasting kingdom, though they will have missed the millennial kingdom.
E.
Biblical Support Cited for This View
1. Suffering. Many passages teach
that believers must endure suffering before they can reign with Christ. Therefore,
believers must either suffer now or in the Tribulation period (Luke 22:18-30; Acts
14:22; Rom. 8:16-17; Col. 3:24; 2 Thes. 1:4-5). Some identify the fire in 1 Corinthians
3:12-15 as the Tribulation. Revelation 3:5, it is said, may refer to a temporary
blotting out of the Book of Life for carnal believers during the period of rewards
which overcomers will enjoy.
2. What is the first resurrection? Since the
Scriptures view the first resurrection as a prize to be gained, this means not all
believers will gain it, only overcomers (Matt. 19:28-29; Luke 9:62; 20:35; Phil.
3:11-14; Rev. 2:11; 3:5).
3. Birthright. A believer, it is said, may lose
his birthright and thus forfeit his chance to be raptured before the Tribulation
(1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 12:14).
4. Baptism of the Spirit. Since
the baptism of the Spirit is seen as empowerment for witnessing, all believers are
not in the body of Christ and therefore not necessarily raptured.
5. Reward.
The Rapture is viewed as a reward which not all believers will attain (Matt. 24:40-41;
25:1-13; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Tim. 4:8; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:24-28; Rev. 3:10).
F.
Some Problems with This View
1. Exclusiveness. First Corinthians 15:51-52
plainly states that all will be changed, not some.
2. Baptism of the Spirit.
The baptism of the Spirit does place all believers in the body of Christ (12:13),
thus all will experience the promise of the Rapture.
3. Who will be punished?
The Tribulation period is never spoken of as a time of chastening for the church
or part of the church. It is the time of Jacob’s trouble.
4. Reward? The Rapture
is not a reward for godly living; rather godly living will be rewarded with crowns,
not Rapture (2 Tim. 4:8, and other passages on crowns).
IV. THE TIME
OF THE RAPTURE
Basically there are three answers to the question of
when the Rapture will occur in relation to the seven years of Tribulation. Pretribulationism
says it will precede the beginning of the entire period. Midtribulationism teaches
it will occur at the midpoint of the seven years; that is, the church will be on
earth during the first three and one half years but will be taken to heaven at that
point, thus escaping the last half of the Tribulation. Posttribulationism understands
that the church will continue on the earth during the entire period, but that there
will be a Rapture as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 at the end followed immediately
by the Second Coming. Each of these views will be examined in the next chapters.
THE
PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE VIEW
I. DEFINITION OF THIS VIEW
Pretribulationism
teaches that the Rapture of the church (both dead and living saints) will occur before
the seven-year Tribulation period, that is, before the beginning of the seventieth
week of Daniel 9:24-27. It is necessary to say “before the seven-year Tribulation
period . . .” because some who hold to midtribulation Rapture state that the Rapture
is pretribulational, because they understand the Tribulation to refer only to the
last three and one half years of the seven-year period.
II. SUPPORTERS
OF THIS VIEW
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) gave the greatest initial
impetus to the systematizing of pretribulationism. This is because he saw the church
as a special work of God, distinct from His program for Israel. This, integrated
into his premillennialism, led him to the position that the church would be raptured
before the Tribulation period when God would again deal specially with Israel.
In
the twentieth century the view has been expounded and defended through The Scofield
Reference Bible, Is the Rapture Next? by Leon Wood (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956),
The Rapture Question, by John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), Things
to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1958), A Revelation of Jesus
Christ, by J.B. Smith (Scottdale, Pa. : Herald Press, 1961), and What You Should
Know about the Rapture, by Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1981).
III.
SUPPORT FOR THIS VIEW
A. Revelation 3:10
The promise is based
on keeping the word of His patience, a reference to all believers (see similar Johannine
designations in John 8:51; 14:23-24; and 1 John 2:3). It was made to all the churches,
not just the one in Philadelphia in the first century (note Rev. 3:13 and the similar
close to each of the letters to these representative churches). It relates to the
coming hour of testing on the earth; that is, to the tribulations prophesied later
on in the Revelation. It states that believers will be kept from that hour (tereso
ek tes horas). Those who oppose pretribulationism understand the phrase to mean “I
will guard”; that is, believers will be guarded throughout the seven years and then
emerge from it at the second coming of Christ.
The pretribulationist’s understanding
of ek is supported by a number of verses that have nothing to do with the Rapture
and therefore do not beg the question. “He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards
his soul from troubles” (Prov. 21:23). Guarding your mouth and tongue is not the
means of protecting yourself in the time of trouble; rather, it is the means of escaping
trouble you are not presently in. In the Septuagint ek indicates an external, not
internal, preservation. Ek also is used in the same way of external protection in
Joshua 2:13 and in Psalms 33:19; 56:13. Likewise in the New Testament, ek clearly
has the same meaning. In Acts 15:29 Gentile believers were asked to keep themselves
from certain practices that were offensive to Jewish believers. The only way they
could do that would be by abstaining entirely from the practices. They must withdraw,
not somehow protect themselves while practicing those things. In James 5:20 we are
told that if a sinning Christian can be turned away from his backslidden state he
will be saved from physical death. There is no way ek could mean he will be protected
in the midst of physical death and then emerge from it in some kind of resurrection.
He will escape a premature death by being exempt from it. (For an excellent discussion
of these and other points related to Revelation 3:10, see Jeffrey L. Townsend, “The
Rapture in Revelation 3:10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1980, pp. 252-66.)
The
same phrase keep from, occurs in John 17:15: “I do not ask Thee to take them out
of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.” Posttribulationists point out
that this promise is fulfilled not by removing believers from the world but by protecting
them from Satan while they live on the earth. Then they assert that, similarly, believers
will live during the Tribulation but be kept from its wrath.
Such an analogy
fails to answer the basic question, How are believers kept from Satan’s power? True,
it is not by removing them from this world, but a removal is involved. Paul described
it this way: “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us
to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). John said the same thing when he
wrote that “the evil one does not touch [cling to] him [the believer]” (1 John 5:18).
Believers have been transferred from one domain (Satan’s) to another (Christ’s),
and that is how we are kept from the evil one.
However, the promise of Revelation
3:10 not only guarantees being kept from the trials of the Tribulation period but
being kept from the time period of the Tribulation. The promise is not, “I will keep
you from the trials.” It is, “I will keep you from the hour of the trials.” Posttribulationists
have to resort to finding means to “undercut stress on the term ‘hour’” (Robert H.
Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], p.59) by
insisting that “hour” means the experiences of a time period but not the time itself.
In other words, the church will live through the time but not experience (some of)
the events. But if the events of the Tribulation are worldwide and directly and indirectly
affect everybody, how can the church be on the earth and escape the experiences?
If our Lord had been saved from the hour of His atoning sacrifice (John 12:27) by
living through that time but not experiencing the events of His passion, there would
have been no atonement.
Granted, it is possible to live through a time and
miss some of the events (like being present at a social function but missing some
of the activities), but it is not possible to miss the time without also missing
the events.
To summarize, posttribulationists teach unclearly the meaning
of the promise of Revelation 3:10. (1) Some seem to say that it means protection
(for some believers who escape martyrdom throughout the Tribulation) and then Rapture
at the end. (2) Some seem to say that it means protection from the last crisis (which
includes Armageddon and the “lull” of peace and safety that supposedly precedes it)
by Rapture just before that last crisis. (3) Some seem to say that it means the church
will live through Armageddon, be guarded during that time, and emerge (all believers
unscathed?) in the Rapture-Second Coming. One thing is clear to posttribulationists:
it cannot mean deliverance before the Tribulation begins.
But how clear and
plain the promise is. “I . . . will keep you from the hour of testing.” Not from
just any persecution, but the coming time that will affect the whole earth. (The
only way to escape worldwide trouble is not to be on the earth.) And the only way
to escape the time when events take place is not to be in a place where time ticks
on. The only place that meets those qualifications is heaven.
Perhaps an illustration
will help keep the promise in its clear, uncomplicated form. As a teacher I frequently
have to give exams. Let us suppose that I announce to a class that I am going to
give an exam on such-and-such a day at the regular classtime. Then suppose I say,
“I want to make a promise to students whose grade average for the semester so far
is A. The promise is: I will keep you from the exam.” If I said nothing more by way
of explanation, I expect that the A students would puzzle over that promise. “Does
it mean we have to take the exam or not?” they would ask. And just to be safe, I
would expect, they would show up at the appointed time because they would not have
understood clearly what I meant.
Now I could keep my promise to those A students
this way: I could pass out the exam to everyone, and give to the A students a sheet
containing the answers. They would take the exam and yet in reality be kept from
the exam. They would live through the time but not suffer the trial. This is posttribulationism.
Protection while enduring.
But if I said to the class, “I am giving an exam
next week. I want to make a promise to all the A students. I will keep you from the
hour of the exam.” I very seriously doubt if the A students in that class would spend
any time debating what I meant or whether or not they had to show up at the time
of the exam. They would understand clearly that to be kept from the hour of the test
exempts them from being present during that hour. This is pretribulationism, and
this is the meaning of the promise of Revelation 3:10. And the promise came from
the risen Savior who Himself is the Deliverer from the wrath to come (1 Thes. 1:10).
B.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
In 4:13-18 Paul tried to allay the fears of
some who thought that deceased believers might not share in the kingdom. His explanation
in that paragraph was something about which they were uninformed. But, in contrast,
they were well informed about the beginning of the Day of the Lord as he explains
in 5:1-11.
The beginning of that day will come unexpectedly in a time of peace
and safety (v. 2), with pain (v. 3) and wrath (v. 9). In the meantime, believers
are to live with alertness and sobriety. The exhortations of verses 6, 8, 10 are
not to watch for signs during the Tribulation in preparation for the Day of the Lord
at the end of the Tribulation, but to live godly lives in
view of the coming Tribulation which believers will escape. Of this teaching Paul
said they were fully aware (v. 2). How? Partly from Paul’s own teaching to them,
but also from their knowledge of the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament,
the Day of the Lord is referred to by that phrase about 20 times, often with eschatological
implications. In addition, a parallel term, “the last days,” occurs 14 times, always
eschatological. Further the phrase “in that day” occurs over 100 times and is generally
eschatological. In Isaiah 2:2, 11-12 (KJV), the three phrases appear, referring to
the same eschatological time. So there was ample reason for Paul to say that his
readers knew about the Day of the Lord from the Old Testament itself.
But
concerning the Rapture there is no Old Testament revelation. This omission from over
a hundred passages seems hard to understand if the Rapture is the first event of
the Day of the Lord, as posttribulationism teaches. But if the Rapture is a mystery,
unrevealed in the Old Testament, and if it precedes the actual beginning of the Day
of the Lord, as pretribulationism teaches, then it is not strange that Paul had to
inform them about the Rapture but needed only to remind them what they already knew
about the Day of the Lord.
Posttribulationists, then, want to make a very
close connection between 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 5:1-11, whereas pretribulationists
are better served by seeing a contrast of subjects between the two paragraphs.
Thus
the posttribulational scenario runs like this: Paul moves with ease from his discussion
of the Rapture in 4:13-18 to the discussion of the parousia in 5:1-11 because he
is talking about events that occur at the same time and not events separated by seven
years. Paul’s choice of de (the first Greek word in 5:1), a simple connective with
only a slight contrastive sense, indicates this close connection. And since the Day
of the Lord will not begin until the Second Coming, the Rapture will occur then also.
Pretribulationists
point out that the contrast between the subjects of the two chapters is sharpened
by the fact that Paul did not simply use a de to begin verse 1 but a phrase, peri
de. This is very significant, because elsewhere in his writings Paul uses peri de
to denote a new and contrasting subject. Notice 1 Corinthians 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1;
16:1, 12; and 1 Thessalonians 4:9 and 5:1. Granted, the posttribulationists’ contention
that the same subject is being discussed in 4:13-18 and 5:1-11 might be supported
by the use of de alone, but it is completely nullified by the use of peri de. So
the pretribulationists’ use of the passage is strongly supported exegetically. The
Rapture is not a part of the Day of the Lord and therefore cannot be posttribulational.
To
summarize: The question of the beginning of the Day of the Lord is a watershed between
pre- and posttribulationism. Pretribulationism sees the Day of the Lord beginning
at the start of the Tribulation for the following reasons:
(1) The very first
judgments (by whatever chronology one uses) include war, famine, and the death of
one fourth of the population of the earth.
(2) The one time the Scriptures
mention peace and safety during the Tribulation period is at its very beginning.
This time will be followed immediately by war, destruction, and upheavals that will
continue unabated until Christ comes. Thus the Day of the Lord must begin at the
beginning of the Tribulation, and the Rapture must be before.
(3) The revelation
of the man of sin will occur at the beginning of the Tribulation when he makes a
pact with the Jewish people.
(4) The much more normal understanding of the
verb in Revelation 6:17 conveys the idea that the wrath has already come and continues.
(5)
Paul’s use of peri de, not simply de, in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 indicates contrasting
subjects.
(6) The removal of peace from the earth just after the Tribulation
begins fits only pretribulationism.
If posttribulationism is correct, then
it must provide much more satisfactory answers than it has to the following questions:
(1)
How can the Day of the Lord not begin with the Tribulation or any part of it and
yet begin with the judgments of Armageddon?
(2) How can the final conflict
at the end of the Tribulation be shrunk into a single battle of short enough duration
so that the church can be raptured before it starts (in order to escape the wrath)
and yet turn right around and accompany Christ on His return to earth at the conclusion
of what would have to be a very brief battle?
(3) Does protection from wrath
poured out on unbelievers really include exemption from the fallout effects of the
actions of those unbelievers on whom the wrath is poured? It does not today. Why
should it in the future?
(4) How does bunching the wrath judgments at the
end of the Tribulation take care of the problem that equally severe judgments seem
to take place earlier in the Tribulation and fall on believers as well as unbelievers?
(5)
What is the more normal interpretation of the aorist in Revelation 6:17? Does it
not indicate that the wrath has already been poured out, that it did not begin with
the sixth seal?
(6) Does not the use of the phrase peri de in 1 Thessalonians
5:1 indicate that the Rapture is really not a part of the Day of the Lord at the
end of the Tribulation?
Only pretribulationism fits harmoniously with all
the scriptural evidence and answers those questions satisfactorily.
C.
The Church
Other arguments for the pretribulation Rapture include
the absence of the church in Revelation 4-19 where the Tribulation is described in
great detail; the removal of the Restrainer before the Day of the Lord and the revelation
of the man of sin (2 Thes. 2:1-9); and the need to have some human beings survive
the Tribulation in their earthly bodies in order to become the parents of the millennial
population.
POPULATING THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
I. THE PROBLEM
When
the Millennium begins, some people have to be alive in unresurrected bodies, who
can beget children and populate that kingdom. All premillennialists agree with this.
The
Millennium not only involves the reign of Christ with His people, who will then have
resurrected bodies, but also the reign of Christ over people on this earth who will
not have resurrected bodies. If there were only resurrected saints in the kingdom,
then there would be no death, no increase in population, and no differences in the
ages of millennial citizens (all of which are indicated as characterizing the kingdom-Isa.
65:20; Zech. 8:5; Rev. 20:12). Since resurrected people do not propagate, there would
be no way to populate the kingdom unless some unresurrected people enter the Millennium.
Thus all premillennialists see the need to have some adults who survive the Tribulation
who are not taken to heaven at the end of the Tribulation but who enter the Millennium
in unresurrected bodies to become the first parents of the millennial population.
II.
THE PRETRIBULATIONAL SOLUTION
The pretribulational understanding of
future events satisfies this need easily. The Rapture will occur before the Tribulation,
removing all the redeemed who are living on the earth at that time. But many people
will be saved during the Tribulation (Rev. 7:9, 14) including a specific group of
144,000 Jewish people (v. 4). Of those saved during that horrible time, many will
be martyred (6:11; 13:15), but some will survive to enter the Millennium (Matt. 25:34;
Zech. 14:11). The initial group who will enter the Millennium will not only enter
with natural bodies but will also be redeemed people who willingly submit to the
rule of the King. In due time, babies will be born and grow up. Some will receive
Christ into their hearts; others will not. But all will have to give allegiance to
the King’s government or suffer the consequences. By the end of the Millennium there
will be innumerable rebels who will have given outward obedience to the King, but
who, when given the opportunity by Satan after his release, will join his revolution
against Christ (Rev. 20:7-9).
Thus in the pretribulational understanding of
these future events, the original parents of the millennial kingdom will come from
the redeemed (but unresurrected) survivors of the Tribulation, the “sheep” of Matthew
25:34 and the faithful Jewish survivors of Ezekiel 20:38.
IV. THE 144,000
JEWS
Some posttribulationists consider the 144,000 Jews to be “spiritual
Israel—the church” (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], p. 114). If so, then their sealing is at the beginning of
the Tribulation and relates to their spiritual salvation as well as physical protection.
Gundry acknowledges that the 144,000 might belong to the church (and therefore be
saved at the beginning); he prefers to regard them as unsaved throughout the Tribulation
and identical with the group that will look on Christ when He returns and believe
(Zech. 12:10) and with the Israel who will be saved at the Second Coming (Rom. 11:26-27).
The reason for his preference is logical. If the 144,000 were saved any time during
the Tribulation years-at the beginning, in the middle, or even during the last year-they
would be raptured in the posttribulation Rapture, given resurrection bodies at that
time, then return at the same time to reign with Christ in the kingdom. But having
been given resurrection bodies would preclude their being the parents of anybody
in the kingdom. On the other hand, if they were not saved until the very end of the
Second Coming, they would “escape” the Rapture, yet be converted, but remain in unresurrected
bodies and thus be able to become parents of millennial children.
Actually,
pretribulationists understand that there will be a group of Jewish people converted
at the conclusion of the Tribulation who will become the parents of the Jewish portion
of the millennial population. They will come from among the Jewish people who survive
the Tribulation even though they were unsaved throughout it. When the Lord returns
they will be gathered and judged, the rebels (possibly two thirds, Zech. 13:8) to
be excluded from the kingdom, and those who turn in faith when they see Him to enter
the kingdom (Ezek. 20:33-44). Those believing survivors constitute the “all” of all
Israel that will be saved at the Second Coming (Rom. 11:26). But they will not be
given resurrection bodies at that time; rather they will enter the kingdom in material
bodies with the ability to propagate.
Why cannot the posttribulationist also
let this group be the millennial parents? Because that group will believe when they
see the Lord coming, which would be at the posttribulational Rapture. So they also
would be raptured, taken to heaven, given resurrection bodies, and eliminated from
parenting. The Rapture, whenever it occurs, will be the greatest separation of believers
from unbelievers imaginable so if there is to be a group of Jewish people who will
believe when they see the Lord coming, and if that coming is the posttribulational
Rapture-Second Coming, then they will be raptured because at that moment they will
become believers. So the posttribulationist needs to have a group that is sealed
in an unsaved state long enough to miss the Rapture but not long enough to miss entering
the Millennium in material bodies. Thus, as one would expect, Gundry says of Ezekiel
20 that “that passage may not portray a formal judgment at all” (p. 168). Actually,
it cannot in the posttribulational system.
Can the 144,000 be considered unconverted
throughout the Tribulation years? The answer is yes. One can hold any interpretation
one wishes. The question is not, Is it possible to interpret that way? The question
is, Is it reasonable to do so? What does the text of Revelation 7:1-8 say?
It
states two very significant facts: the 144,000 “have the seal of the living God”
(v. 2) and they are “the bond servants of our God” (v. 3). The text does not specifically
say what their service is, but it does say whom they serve. They serve God, not Antichrist.
Are we to imagine here a group of 144,000 unsaved people designated as God’s bond
servants? Posttribulationists weakly explain that the designation is anticipatory
of their millennial service when they will have been converted. Any explanation is
possible, but is it the most likely meaning of the text? Certainly not.
But
even granting that their designation as God’s servants does not apply to the 144,000
in the Tribulation period but only in the Millennium, the statement in verse 2 is
very difficult to harmonize with the posttribulational system. The group is said
to be sealed before the judgments of the Tribulation begin (v. 3). Try to fit this
into posttribulationism. Here would be a distinct group of unconverted Jewish people
on whose foreheads God has placed His seal. As unsaved people, they (or surely some
of them) will follow Antichrist, who also will place his mark on their foreheads
or hands. And the destiny of Antichrist’s followers has already been predetermined:
they will be tormented forever with fire and brimstone (14:9-11). None of his followers
will be saved, not even 144,000 of them.
To sum up: posttribulationism needs
to have an unconverted group of Jews who will survive the Tribulation, but who, because
they are unconverted, will not be raptured at the end, but will be converted by the
time the Millennium begins so they can enter the Millennium in their unresurrected
bodies and beget children. The only group that can qualify is the 144,000, assuming
they can be described as unconverted servants of God who have on their foreheads
God’s seal before the Tribulation begins and who do not follow Antichrist so they
will not have his mark. Is all this possible?
V. MATTHEW 24:40-41
Not
only must the 144,000 be identified in a particular way, but the groups distinguished
in verses 40-41 must also be identified in a certain way to come up with the posttribulational
picture.
According to the posttribulational understanding, these verses say
the following: “Then [at the posttribulational Rapture-Second Coming] there shall
be two men in the field; one [saved, representing the church] will be taken [in the
posttribulational Rapture], and one [unsaved, representing the wicked] will be left
[for judgment, though not all will be judged, so some will be left to be parents
of the Gentile population of the Millennium].” And the same for verse 41—the one
taken is raptured, and the one left is judged.
By contrast, the pretribulationist
sees the verses as a general statement of the results of the specific judgments on
surviving Jews and Gentiles at the Second Coming. Those who are taken are taken into
the judgments and condemned, and those who are left successfully pass the judgments
and are left for blessing in the kingdom.
Notice that the posttribulationist
must add the stipulation that not all who are left are judged and condemned so that
there will be some left to populate the earth. But therein lies an inconsistency:
the Rapture will take all the redeemed, but the judgment will not include all the
unredeemed. Only part of the wicked will be judged.
Pretribulationists support
their view by pointing out that according to verse 39 the Flood took the people of
Noah’s day into judgment; therefore, those taken at the Second Coming will also be
taken into judgment.
Posttribulationists observe that a different word is
used in verse 39 for “took away” than in verses 40-41, indicating two different kinds
of taking away—verse 39 into judgment but verses 40-41 into heaven at the Rapture.
They reinforce this argument by pointing out that the word in verses 40-41 is the
same word used to describe the Rapture in John 14:3, “receive you to Myself.”
The
two interpretations look like this:
PRETRIBULATIONAL INTERPRETATION
POSTTRIBULATIONAL
INTERPRETATION
“Taken”
Into judgment
Into heaven in the posttribulational
Rapture
“Left”
For blessing in the kingdom (in unresurrected bodies
to propagate)
For judgment (but only a part will be judged so the rest can
enter the kingdom in unresurrected bodies)
Pretribulationists note that in
John 19:16 the same word used in Matthew 24:40-41 (supposedly of the Rapture according
to posttribulationists) is used of taking the Lord into judgment, so obviously it
could mean judgment in verses 40-41, as pretribulationism teaches. Back and forth
the discussion of the words goes. What can we conclude? Simply that the words themselves
are inconclusive.
But the debate is not without resolution. It can easily
be settled by looking at the parallel passage in Luke 17:34-37, where the same warning
about one being taken and one left is given by the Lord. However, Luke adds a question
that the disciples asked: “Where, Lord?” They asked Him where those taken would be
taken. They did not inquire where those left would be left. If the Lord intended
us to understand that those taken would be taken in the Rapture (as posttribulationism
teaches), He would have answered the question by saying heaven, or the Father’s house,
or some similar expression. But His answer conveyed that they would be taken somewhere
quite opposite to a blissful heaven. His answer was, “Where the body is, there will
also the vultures be gathered.” Christ’s answer is a proverb about vultures appearing
out of nowhere when an animal dies. Where will they be taken? Where there is death
and corruption, not life and immortality. The reference is not to heaven, but to
judgment. Thus the pretribulationist’s understanding of the identity of the one taken
and the one left is the correct one according to Luke 17:37. A posttribulational
Rapture is nowhere indicated in these verses.
VI. THE TIME OF THE SHEEP
AND THE GOATS JUDGMENT
This judgment of the sheep and goats, placed
at the Second Coming by pretribulationists, has to be moved to a later time if posttribulationism
be consistent. The reason is that if the Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation,
that is, at the Second Coming and if all the sheep are taken to heaven in that Rapture,
how will there be any left to be assembled before Christ when He comes? They will
already have gone. Or to put it another way: the Rapture-Second Coming will separate
the redeemed from the wicked; yet this judgment at the Second Coming will do the
same, only there will not be any righteous on the earth to separate since they will
just have been raptured.
Moving this judgment also provides for unsaved survivors
of the Tribulation and Second Coming to enter the Millennium in unresurrected bodies.
Gundry admits, “We are therefore forced to put the judgment of the nations after
the Millennium” (p. 166). Forced? Why? Because the condemnation of the goats cannot
be of only a part of them, since the text says “all” will be judged. In his interpretation
of those left in Matthew 24:40-41, Gundry says that represented only “a partial destruction”
(p. 137), but here all are specifically said to be involved (25:32).
No text
requires that there be unsaved entering the Millennium. After a few years have passed
there will be people, born during the early days of the Millennium, who will grow
to adulthood rejecting the Savior-King in their hearts (though outwardly obeying
Him). But no text requires that there be unsaved people among the survivors of the
Tribulation who enter the Millennium. Zechariah 14:16 (sometimes used to support
this idea) refers to the first generation of millennial citizens who came through
the judgments as redeemed, not rebels, and who will voluntarily go to Jerusalem to
worship the King. But verses 17-21 move on to describe conditions throughout the
Millennium, not just at the beginning. As time goes on, some will not obey the King
and will have to be punished.
Perhaps the more compelling reason for the posttribulationists’
moving this judgment to the end of the Millennium is not to get goats into the Millennium
as much as it is to get sheep into the judgment itself. Let me press the point again:
if the judgment occurs at the Second Coming, and if the Rapture has just occurred
as part of the Second Coming, and if the Rapture has removed the sheep (as it would),
then where will the sheep come from to be present in this judgment?
If, however,
the judgment can be moved to the close of the Millennium, then, of course, there
will be both righteous and wicked people living at the conclusion of the Millennium
to be present. But how, then, does one reconcile the rather diverse characteristics
of Matthew 25:31-46 with those that describe what would supposedly be the same judgment
at the Great White Throne in Revelation 20:11-15? Notice some of the contrasts between
the judgment of the sheep and goats and the judgment at the Great White Throne.
Gundry
calls the judgment of the sheep and goats a “pattern for the general judgment at
the end of time” (p.167). If it is a pattern, it is rather inexact! To be sure, passages
describing the same event do not each have to contain all the same details, but these
two passages seem to be entirely dissimilar in their details.
If the judgment
of the sheep and goats is to be moved to the end of the Millennium then of course,
Matthew 25:31 must be understood as referring to the Second Coming and verse 32 to
the end of the Millennium, 1,000 years later. In other words, the gap of the 1,000-year
Millennium must come between verses 31 and 32. Premillennialists recognize that such
gaps occur in Scripture (Isa. 9:6 and John 5:28-29, for example), so this is not
an impossible idea. But is it the likely interpretation?
SHEEP AND GOATS
GREAT
WHITE THRONE
No resurrection(though O.T. saints may be raised at the Second
Coming, they will not be a part of the judgment)
Resurrection of the dead
No
books opened
Books opened
The word “nations” used (and the word is
never used of the dead)
The word “dead” used
Sheep present
Righteous
not mentioned as present
Three groups mentioned: sheep, goats, brethren
Only
one group mentioned: the dead
Reward is the kingdom and eternal life
No
mention of reward, only condemnation
Occurs at the place Christ comes to,
i.e., the earth
Earth has fled away
Matthew 25:35-40 gives the answer.
Do these verses describe millennial conditions? They have to if this judgment will
occur after the conclusion of the Millennium. If they do, then the Millennium will
have to be a time when Christ and His followers are hungry, thirsty, naked, sick,
and in prison. Those who disobey the King during the Millennium may be imprisoned,
but the text says that during the period preceding the judgment Christ’s followers
will be in prison. As certainly as this will not be true during the Millennium, it
will be true during the Tribulation. Christ’s followers will be hungry, thirsty,
naked, sick, and imprisoned during the Tribulation years, but not during the Millennium
when Christ will be ruling in righteousness.
Clearly then, verses 35-40 preclude
inserting a gap of 1,000 years between verses 31 and 32. The judgment will immediately
follow the coming of Christ and will test people on the basis of their heart reactions
to conditions that will exist during the Tribulation—conditions that will not be
present during the Millennium for Christ’s followers.
