The Problem With the Rapture

A popular theological position in the modern, Western church is that the rapture of the church takes place prior to the coming of the Antichrist and the tribulation. This view has permeated the church in the last 100-200 years. As such, it is a recent theological development, mostly unknown to the reformers and church fathers.

How did the Christian church come to the current pre-trib view? Why is it popular today? And why does it stand contrary to the historical end-times theology the church held for more than 1800 years? 

Origin of Pre-Tribulational Theology 

The pre-tribulation rapture was popularly introduced in the nineteenth century, first through John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and then spread broadly through American evangelicalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish clergyman and early Plymouth Brethren leader, began developing his dispensational understanding of prophecy in the late 1820s. By about 1830, he was teaching a distinction between:

• Christ’s coming for the church, before the tribulation; and
• Christ’s later visible coming with the church, after the tribulation.

Darby did not invent belief in believers being “caught up”; Christians had always interpreted I Thessalonians 4:17 in some fashion. His distinctive contribution was placing that gathering before the tribulation and integrating it into a larger system separating God’s prophetic plans for Israel and the church. Historians therefore commonly identify Darby as the principal architect and early popularizer of modern dispensational pre-tribulationism. 

The decisive popularizing event was the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, followed by an expanded edition in 1917. C. I. Scofield placed dispensational interpretations directly beside the biblical text in explanatory notes. Ordinary readers could therefore encounter the following system while reading their Bible:

• The church age
• The pre-tribulation rapture
• Daniel’s seventieth week or seven-year tribulation
• Christ’s visible return
• The millennial kingdom

The Scofield Bible sold millions of copies, circulated internationally, and appeared in numerous languages. Historians regard it as one of the most important vehicles for making dispensational theology an assumed framework among many English-speaking conservative Protestants.

By the middle of the twentieth century, pre-tribulationism had become one of the dominant positions in American fundamentalist, Bible-church, dispensational Baptist, and Pentecostal circles. Thus, the pre-tribulation rapture became a recognizable, organized theological system through John Nelson Darby in the late 1820s and 1830s, and it became broadly popular through the Scofield Reference Bible after 1909.

Scripture 

Until the 19th century, the majority view of the church was not a pre-tribulational rapture. Rather, most of the church held to a post-tribulational view, derived from emphatic statements in scripture. Not the least of which is I Thessalonians 4. Let’s systematize this passage with other passages about the rapture of the church. 

“We say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (I Thessalonians 4:15-17). 

Notice in the above passage that the rapture of the church and the resurrection happen together. The two cannot be separated. The key to understanding when this happens is to discover when the resurrection happens. 

There are two resurrections mentioned in scripture. The first resurrection of the righteous, mentioned above, and the resurrection of the damned, mentioned in Revelation 20. For our purposes, we are looking at the resurrection of the righteous. When does their resurrection take place? Revelation 20:4 places their resurrection after the Antichrist has persecuted and killed believers. It then says, “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” We also find another statement about the timing of the resurrection in Matthew 24:29-31:

“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET BLAST, and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

Notice the timing. Jesus says, after the tribulation. Then he describes the events that will take place. The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky. These are post-tribulational signs. Then, after these things, the church will be raptured, as the angels gather together his elect from the four winds. 

The standard pre-tribulational model has this as a double coming of Christ. In that model, Jesus comes before the tribulation, rapturing the church and raising the dead, then, seven years later, he does it again, bringing up the saints that died during the tribulation. There is only one problem with this view. Nowhere in scripture is this emphatically stated. In fact, giving it some thought, this would mean that there are three resurrections, two of the saved and one of the damned. But scripture states in Revelation 20 that there are only two resurrections, specifically referring to them as the first and the second. 

Objections 

There are two objections to the post-tribulational rapture position, which I will mention here. It is sometimes objected that Christians are not children of wrath and therefore cannot be on the earth when God pours out his wrath during the tribulation. It’s even said that the suffering that will happen during that period from the Antichrist will be worse than anything that the church has experienced from its persecutors. But does the scripture actually say that? 

I Thessalonians 5:9 states, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This passage is often used to support a pre-trib rapture since during the tribulation, God will pour out his wrath on the earth. But the context of this verse has nothing to do with the rapture. It is speaking of salvation in general. Consider when Paul wrote this. At that time, no rapture was in view. Thousands of years were still to pass before a rapture might take place. This is similar to another passage in Ephesians 2:3, where Paul says we were children of wrath (past tense). He uses the wrath language to speak of salvation in general, not about escape from wrath through rapture. 

Another objection is found in Revelation 3:10, “Because you have kept My word of perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of the testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who live on the earth.”

There are two things to note. First, this passage says nothing of escaping wrath. Instead, it refers to “testing.” Testing is not wrath. If, by definition, tests were wrath, then every trial faced by a Christian would be an endurance of God’s wrath. But since we are not children of wrath, this is unreasonable. 

The second thing to note is to define what that trial is that will be poured out on the world. Pre-tribulationists define this as the tribulation that the world will endure. But note to whom the promise is made. It is not made for you and me in the present. It was made for the church of Philadelphia in the past. How were they kept from the hour of trial? They died. In fact, in one sense, you can say this is true of all seven of the churches of Revelation in chapters two and three. They all died. So how, contextually, does this refer to a future wrath to come, later in our days? This passage, contextually, says nothing about rapture. 

Arguments From Silence 

Another argument made for the pre-tribulational rapture is that the church is not mentioned in Revelation between chapters three and twenty. The seven churches are mentioned, and then there is no specific mention of the church until Revelation 20, when the dead are raised. The conclusion is then drawn that the church is not mentioned because it has been raptured and is no longer present on the earth. But beware. This is an argument from silence. It is just as easy to say that the church is not mentioned in these chapters because it is not the literary focal point of what John is writing to communicate. He doesn’t mention the church because it is not germane to his purpose for those chapters. 

It’s one thing to make an argument from silence when there are other emphatic statements in scripture to support a position. But this is not the case with the pre-tribulational rapture. There are no emphatic statements in scripture of a pre-tribulational rapture to support a further silence elsewhere on the topic. 

It is always unwise to build our theology around what the scripture is silent about. Let’s use this example. The scripture does not speak about a third resurrection after the millennial reign of Christ. For instance, what will happen to the saints who die during the millennial reign? Will they be raised from the dead in glorified bodies? The scripture does not say. So, because the scripture is silent on this, pastors don’t teach a third resurrection. We don’t know what happens to them. We may speculate, but that’s all it would be, speculation, not concrete emphatic statements addressing the issue of dead millennial saints. We don’t build our theology around silence. Yet, that is exactly what is done with the pre-tribulational rapture. Objectors say the church is not mentioned; therefore, it must not be there. But that silence could be easily explained by other literary objectives of the author. 

The Church at Large 

Historically, the global church has not held a pre-tribulational rapture position. In fact, much of the church today, globally, continues to hold to a post-tribulational rapture. Pre-tribulationism is highly influential within global evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity, particularly in the Global South, but most Christians worldwide belong to traditions that do not teach it. 

Pre-tribulation rapture tends to be strongest in Pentecostal, Brethren, Baptist, independent Bible-church, and missionary-founded evangelical congregations. The Philippines has received extensive American evangelical and Pentecostal influence. In India, Plymouth Brethren and Pentecostal movements have helped spread dispensational teaching, particularly in some evangelical Bible-college networks. South Korean evangelicalism has also absorbed substantial American revivalist, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal influence.

Asian Christianity is not uniformly pre-tribulational. Ancient churches such as the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and historic Syrian traditions do not traditionally teach it. Neither do most Catholic churches nor many mainline Protestant denominations.

The pre-tribulation view exists among Arab evangelicals, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Brethren assemblies. It is especially likely to be found in churches influenced by Western evangelical missions and translated dispensational literature. However, the historic churches of the Middle East—including Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Greek Orthodox, Maronite, and other Catholic and Orthodox communities—do not teach a distinct pre-tribulation rapture as part of their traditional doctrine.

Pre-tribulationism is comparatively less prominent in Europe, although it has important historical roots there through John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. It remains influential among Plymouth Brethren assemblies, some Pentecostal churches, some Baptist and independent evangelical churches, and certain conservative prophecy ministries. But most European Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed Christians, and Methodists do not hold it.

From this global survey, we can see that the pre-tribulational rapture theory is not universally accepted by the church at large. 

Modern Biblical Scholars 

Most modern biblical scholars are probably not pre-tribulationists. However, there is no comprehensive, representative poll of biblical scholars that permits a defensible percentage.

The most accurate conclusion is: Among scholars who accept a future tribulation and a literal gathering of believers, the post-tribulation—or single-return—interpretation appears more common than the pre-tribulation interpretation. Across biblical scholarship as a whole, many scholars do not fit neatly into either category.

Significantly, pre-tribulationism declines with higher educational attainment: 60% among pastors without college education, 26% among pastors with master’s degrees, while pastors with advanced degrees are more likely to reject a separate literal rapture. This does not establish the views of scholars, but it suggests that pre-tribulationism is less dominant in academically trained circles than in popular evangelical culture.

Pre-tribulationism is a substantial minority position within modern biblical scholarship and a major position in certain evangelical institutions, but the broader scholarly tendency is toward one public return of Christ in which the resurrection, transformation, and gathering of believers occur together.

The Great Awakening 

The pastors of the First Great Awakening in the 1730s–1740s did not teach the modern pre-tribulation rapture doctrine. They believed 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17—that believers would be “caught up” to meet Christ—but generally connected that event with Christ’s one public return, the resurrection of the dead, and final judgment. The modern system of a separate rapture followed by a seven-year tribulation had not yet become part of evangelical teaching.

Jonathan Edwards was probably the most important theologian of the Great Awakening. His outlook was broadly postmillennial: he expected a great future advance of the gospel and a long period of prosperity for Christ’s church before Christ’s final return.

George Whitefield left fewer systematic writings on prophecy than Edwards. His preaching concentrated on conversion, regeneration, holiness, resurrection, and readiness for judgment.

Nevertheless, Whitefield clearly spoke of Christ’s bodily return as the return associated with the final judgment. In one sermon, he criticized those who denied “Our Lord’s coming in the flesh, at the day of judgment.” He also strongly defended the future bodily resurrection against those who reduced resurrection to spiritual regeneration. Whitefield remained an Anglican priest and strongly affirmed the doctrinal standards of the Church of England. A scholarly examination of his theology notes that the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer were living confessional authorities for him, not merely formal documents. 

Article IV of the Thirty-Nine Articles states that Christ is seated in heaven: “Until he return to judge all Men at the last day.” That is one visible return on the last day, not one coming for the church before the tribulation and another coming later for judgment. 

Samuel Davies, one of the leading Southern revival preachers and later president of the College of New Jersey, emphasized preparing for death, resurrection, and the judgment seat of Christ. Eternal heaven and punishment were not organized around two stages of Christ’s return or a seven-year absence of the church from the earth.

What did “caught up” mean to them? The Awakening pastors did not deny that believers would be caught up. They accepted the language of I Thessalonians 4. But they normally understood it as part of this single event: Christ descends publicly, the trumpet sounds, the dead are raised, living believers are transformed, the saints meet Christ, and judgment follows.

The Reformers 

The principal sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers did not teach the modern pre-tribulation rapture theory. They certainly believed the biblical teaching of I Thessalonians 4:16–17—that living believers would be “caught up” to meet Christ. But they generally understood this as part of one public Second Coming, accompanied by the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and beginning of the eternal state—not as a secret removal of the church several years before Christ’s visible return.

Martin Luther and the Lutheran Reformers: Article XVII of the 1530 Augsburg Confession says that “at the consummation of the world” Christ will appear for judgment, raise all the dead, give eternal life to believers, and condemn the ungodly. It presents these as aspects of Christ’s final return rather than two separate comings divided by a seven-year tribulation. 

John Calvin: Calvin taught a general resurrection associated with Christ’s return and final judgment. He also rejected a future earthly millennium as a “fiction” too childish to require refutation. His eschatology therefore differs substantially from dispensational pre-tribulationism, which normally places the rapture before a seven-year tribulation and Christ’s visible return before a literal millennium. 

Heinrich Bullinger and the Swiss Reformed tradition: Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession describes Christ returning from heaven in judgment after the church has suffered opposition and persecution under Antichrist. It does not describe the church as having been removed before that period of trouble. 

Some pretribulationists argue that isolated earlier writers expressed ideas resembling a pre-tribulation removal, but that is different from demonstrating that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, or the mainstream Reformation churches held the modern doctrine. The Reformers believed in the “catching up” described in Scripture, but they treated it as part of Christ’s single, visible return at the end of the age. Calling them pre-tribulation rapturists would be historically inaccurate.

The Apostolic Fathers 

The early church fathers did not teach the developed modern pre-tribulation rapture system. They believed that believers would be gathered to Christ and raised at his coming, but the surviving writings generally place the church’s encounter with Antichrist, persecution, and end-time tribulation before Christ’s public return.

Some fathers were premillennial, while others were not. But premillennialism is not the same as pre-tribulationism. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus expected a future earthly kingdom, yet their sequence still differs from the modern idea that the church is removed before the tribulation.

Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, said: “There will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.” Justin was therefore an early premillennialist. But he did not describe a separate rapture years before Christ’s return. His emphasis was on the resurrection of believers and their participation in Christ’s future kingdom. 

Irenaeus provides one of the clearest early sequences. He wrote: “When this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months.” Then: “The Lord will come from heaven in the clouds.” Christ then destroys Antichrist and brings the righteous into the kingdom. Elsewhere, Irenaeus described the resurrection of the righteous as occurring: “After the coming of Antichrist.” He also referred to those whom Christ finds alive as people who have: “Suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked One.” 

Hippolytus, writing in the early third century, devoted an entire work to Christ and Antichrist. He expected Antichrist to arise, persecute the saints, and then be destroyed by Christ at his coming. His purpose was to prepare Christians to recognize and withstand Antichrist, not to assure them that they would be removed before he appeared. Hippolytus also interpreted the woman fleeing into the wilderness in Revelation 12 as representing the church being pursued during the final crisis. That is difficult to reconcile with a complete pre-tribulation removal of the church.

Cyril of Jerusalem told Christians: “The Church now charges thee before the Living God; she declares to thee the things concerning Antichrist before they arrive.” He urged believers to make themselves spiritually secure in preparation for those events. Cyril’s pastoral concern assumes that the church needs instruction about Antichrist because Christians may encounter him.

Augustine rejected the literal earthly millennium favored by Justin and Irenaeus, but he likewise did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. He wrote of “This last persecution by Antichrist” lasting three and a half years. He said that the saints would continue reigning with Christ spiritually even while suffering that persecution, when their faithfulness and martyrdom would be especially evident.

The church fathers believed in Christ’s return, the resurrection and the gathering of believers, but the earliest clear writings generally expected the church to face Antichrist and end-time persecution before Christ returned. They were not pre-tribulationists in the modern dispensational sense.

Summary 

When considering the pre-tribulational view in both scripture and history, the following becomes apparent:

• The scripture contains no emphatic statements directly stating that the rapture of the church takes place before the tribulation. 
• The scripture seems to indicate a post-tribulational view by Christ, Paul, and John.
• Modern scholarship leans toward a post-tribulational view.
• The reformers of the church who gave us protestantism were post-tribulational in their views. 
• The church fathers did not hold to a pre-tribulational rapture.
• The weight of evidence from both scripture and history leans away from a pre-tribulational rapture view.