Tilting at Windmills

In the novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes (1547–1616), there is a scene in which the eponymous hero spies several dozen windmills in the distance and announces to his squire/sidekick Sancho Panza that they are monstrous giants, and that fortune has arranged for him to engage them in battle.

Although Sancho dutifully informs him that they are nothing but windmills, Don Quixote imagines his battle to be a righteous one, and declares that "the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless." With that, he charges and thrusts his lance into one of the sails, only to be unceremoniously thrown from his horse when the sail is turned by a sudden gust of wind.

This comical scene is where we get the phrase "tilting (i.e., jousting) at windmills," which refers to the confronting of imaginatively and inaccurately perceived enemies in the pursuit of vain, fanciful, or self-serving goals that are imagined to be monumentally heroic.

Don't ask me why, but I have once again been watching a few YouTube videos created by advocates of the post-trib Rapture, and sometimes I simply cannot resist the urge to question or comment on the biblical error they promulgate—and as a result I can relate to how those windmills must feel.

When I do, it doesn't take long for the post-trib Don Quixotes to mount their steeds and take up their lances to do battle with this odious giant that has presumed to set foot in their domain. One thing leads to another, and the next thing you know the comment section bears a closer resemblance to a playground shoving match than a discussion of biblical doctrine. I am happy to report, however, that the Holy Spirit is slowly teaching me to when to keep my mouth shut and sit on my hands.

The Holy Spirit is also trying to get through to me that it's too late in the game for that. There are too many people who need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and pointless arguments aren't going to get it done. We need to spend more time proclaiming our soon coming King than prattling over doctrinal differences and different interpretations of Scripture.

But when I comment on such videos (and, of course, am immediately IDed as a pre-tribber), even if I try my best to be non-confrontational, it seems that I am routinely slammed by arrogant, in-your-face challenges to point to one single verse that comes right out and expressly states the Rapture will occur before the beginning of the Tribulation. For the record, there isn't—nor is there one that comes right out and expressly states that the Rapture will occur at the end of the Tribulation. Or at some point during the Tribulation. Every Rapture position must be inferred by piecing together various scriptural clues.

Or I am hit with a salvo of vehement, blustering accusations that the pre-trib Rapture is nothing but ridiculous, unbiblical, satanically inspired speculation.

It's not easy to discuss the Bible with people who have a laundry list of misinterpreted verses at the ready to support their errant doctrine. The cycle generally goes like this:

• You make a valid scriptural point.
• They respond with a verse twisted to say something it doesn't say.
• Rinse and repeat.

And you lose—because no matter what you say, they have a misinterpreted verse of Scripture yanked out of context to refute it, and there's no way to get through to them. If you prudently decide to simply walk away without playing their game (vowing to never again view, much less comment on, a post-trib video), you are jeered at as a 90-pound biblical weakling who has been suckered into believing a fantasy that is utterly devoid of scriptural support.

Post-trib problems

People who believe in a post-trib Rapture believe that the Church will go through the entire seven-year Tribulation, and at the very end will be caught up to be with Christ when He returns at the Second Coming. The exact sequence of events is a bit hazy, but apparently we have the marriage supper of the Lamb (which they evidently conceive of as something akin to dinner at a celestial Denny's), get fitted for our robes of white, and come right back down with Jesus at the Second Coming later that same day. I'm sure some post-tribbers differ on the details (maybe some lean toward Sizzler), but that's basically the way I heard at least one nationally known post-trib teacher describe it.

Tortuous Second Coming logistics notwithstanding, however, at the very least they believe the Church will go through the full seven years of the Tribulation. That's the key point. What I want to do in this article is to look at four reasons that are routinely offered by post-tribbers to support this belief, and I have endeavored to include those that are at least loosely connected to Scripture.

1. The Church will go through the Tribulation because...

the Church must be purified!

Spots. Wrinkles. Blemishes. Yep, that's us, right? After all, we really are a bunch of spiritual slackers who are sorely in need of a global cataclysm or two to help us shape up and get our collective acts together and rid us of all those nasty spots, wrinkles, and blemishes.

I guess they think the blood of Jesus didn't quite get all the stains out.

Here's the thing—and only the most egregious rewiring of Scripture can get around it: God sees us as being as holy as His Son the moment we believe in repentant faith that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for our sins. We are sealed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our eternal inheritance, and He will never leave us. We are forever saved, or we were never saved. We can add nothing to what Jesus did for us. Few things in the Bible are—or could be—any more clearly stated.

Of course, after we repent of our sins and are born again spiritually, we are urged in the Bible to pursue holiness in our daily lives and to obey the Word. And if we are truly born of the Spirit, we will tend to want to do just that. Not perfectly, of course, because we still have a sin nature—but that should become the prevailing trend of our lives, at least to some perceptible degree.

The Bible makes it crystal clear, however, that our diligence in so doing determines our rewards in heaven at the bema seat, or judgment seat of Christ. Our salvation—our eternal destiny—is a done deal the moment we believe...and under the circumstances I feel compelled to be precise here:

This idea of being eternally sealed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit the moment we believe only applies to the Church, during the current Age of Grace, which began on the day of Pentecost (50 days after Jesus' Resurrection) and ends at the Rapture (which occurs before the beginning of the seven-year Tribulation).

We definitely don't deserve it and certainly can't earn it—we can only receive it in faith.

I suspect that plain old garden-variety guilt is playing a big role here, not to mention a soul-satisfying amount of self-reliance and confidence in the flesh.

2. The Church will go through the Tribulation because...

Jesus said so!

John chapters 13 through 17 describe the Last Supper, where Jesus and His disciples share a ceremonial meal to celebrate the Jewish Feast of Passover. Later that night He would be arrested, and He would be crucified the next day. During this final meal, Jesus had a lot to say to His disciples, and at one point says to them:

Now, it is obvious from a casual reading of this verse and the surrounding context that Jesus is simply talking about the general troubles and trials that are bound to befall all born-again believers in their daily lives as followers of Christ in a fallen world. There is nothing—neither in the surrounding context nor in the grammatical construction—to suggest that Jesus is speaking of some specific period of trouble in the future.

Although Daniel's 70th Week is commonly referred to as the Tribulation in modern Evangelical parlance, it's never actually so named in the Bible. It's simply a convention that has been widely adopted to facilitate communication. So, when someone talks about the Tribulation (normally capitalized because it refers to one very specific future period of time), every knowledgeable listener knows what is being referred to.

In the above passage of Scripture, quoted from the World English Bible, the Greek word translated as "oppression" is a form of the noun thlipsis. The word thlipsis can be variously translated as trouble, trials, sorrows, suffering, distress, pressure, affliction, anguish, misery, persecution, and so on. Oh, and it can also be translated as tribulation, which happens to be how the King James translators rendered it.

The word thlipsis is also used in the following two passages from Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) in which Jesus is giving four of His closest disciples an inside briefing about Daniel's 70th Week and the Second Coming.

Jesus is describing the Second Coming in response to the disciples' questions, and the same Greek word thlipsis is used in both verses in Matthew 24. As a result, most English translations use the same word in all three spots (as you can see the World English Bible did, using the word "oppression"). Even a casual reading of the context in Matthew 24, however, reveals that something different is in view.

In John 16, it is clear that Jesus is talking about general troubles and trials—not to any specific period of troubles and trials in the future. In Matthew 24, however, it is equally clear that Jesus is talking about a very specific future cataclysm (and several other passages of Scripture clearly promise that the Church will be kept from the time and place of it).

But since the English word "tribulation" is used in all three spots in the King James Version (as well as some other good English translations), there are people who will shove their King James Bibles in your face and thump their finger on John 16:33 and turn red in the face shouting:

"AH HA! There! See? Jesus said we'd go through the TRIBULATION! Right there in black and white, pal! (thump thump) TRIB-YOO-LAY-SHUN!"

Then they flip over to Matthew 24 and do some more thumping:

"AH HA! There! See? Jesus said 'AFTER THE TRIB-YOO-LAY-SHUN OF THOSE DAYS!' Right there in black and white pal! (thump thump) Then comes whatchya call yer sign of the Son of Man! How 'bout them apples, hoss? Aaaww, boo hoo...where's your pwecious wittle pwe-twib Wapture?"

Sorry. Even writing about it makes my blood pressure edge a little higher. Then they smugly bask in the glow of what seems to them as proof positive that they have single-handedly destroyed the doctrine of the pre-trib Rapture with one single passage of Scripture—a passage that all pre-tribbers have apparently (gasp) completely overlooked!

FYI: No, we didn't miss Matthew 24:29–31. It's just that a modest amount of competent, unbiased Bible study reveals that this passage (in fact, the entire Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25) has nothing to do with the Church or the Rapture, and everything to do with Israel, the Tribulation, the Second Coming, and the judgment that follows on its heels. The "elect" in v. 31 are not the Church—they are the Jewish remnant. And I can prove it.

Post-tribbers assume the event described in Matthew 24:29–31 is the Rapture, and it's understandable to an extent because it does bear some degree of cosmetic similarity to one of the primary Rapture passages:

Well, both passages do mention clouds. But you don't have to scratch very far below the surface to uncover fundamental differences that make it clear that Matthew 24:29–31 is describing the Second Coming, not the Rapture (and it's almost trivial to demonstrate conclusively from Scripture that these are two distinct events that occur at different times). Matthew 24:29–31 is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that say that God will gather a believing remnant of Jews into the land of Israel at the Second Coming to enter into the Millennial Kingdom (Deut. 30:4–5; Isa. 27:13; 43:5–7).

And yet Matthew 24:29–31 continues to serve as the bedrock proof text for the doctrine of the post-trib Rapture.

3. The Church will go through the Tribulation because...

the Church will be raptured when Jesus
separates the wheat from the tares!

In Matthew 13, Jesus relates what is commonly referred to as the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares:

This is one of several parables Jesus taught that relate to the judgment that follows on the heels of the Tribulation. The tares represent unbelievers who are sent off to eternal punishment, and the wheat represents believers who have survived the Tribulation and who are gathered into the barn (the Millennial Kingdom, which is on earth—as are most barns, last time I checked).

Some people, particularly post-tribbers, get off track by jumping to the conclusion that the wheat represents the Church, and so the wheat harvest at the end of the Tribulation must be the Rapture. But Israel's harvest cycles paint a somewhat different picture of end-time events, and these events are symbolized by three different crops: barley, wheat, and grapes.

Barley matures first, and is harvested in the spring (around Passover). Barley is a relatively soft grain that is easily separated from its husk, and in biblical times it was harvested by winnowing, or being tossed up into the air by a winnowing fork and allowing the wind (or a fan) to blow the husks or chaff from it. Wind is always the Holy Spirit in the Bible, so this is a picture of those who come to faith in Christ during the Church Age (which ends at the Rapture) and allow the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to "blow away" the chaff (sin) in their lives. Thus the barley harvest is a picture of the rapture of the Church.

Wheat matures later, and is harvested after the barley (around Pentecost). However, wheat has a harder husk that requires more force to remove. In biblical days wheat was harvested by crushing it under a board known as a tribulum (go ahead...look me in the eyes and tell me it's a coincidence that it's based on the same root as the word "tribulation"). The wheat harvest is a picture of those who come to faith in Christ during the Tribulation and survive until the end (growing alongside the tares) and will be welcomed into the Millennial Kingdom (the barn).

Finally, the grape harvest extends from the summer into the fall, and is traditionally associated with the Feast of Tabernacles. Grapes are crushed in a winepress, with the resulting juice often being symbolic of blood (and by extension death, destruction, and God's wrath and/or judgment). Thus, the grape harvest is a picture of unbelievers being destroyed as God pours out His wrath during the Tribulation, especially the last half of it.

I should add that there are people who believe the grapes, rather than representing unbelievers who will be destroyed, are a final group of people who come to faith in Christ in the midst of the extreme judgments of the Great Tribulation. They see this group as especially hard cases that need great suffering to be brought into the kingdom. I am not overly dogmatic about it, but I personally disagree with this interpretation. I think the grape harvest represents unbelievers who are killed during the Great Tribulation, while the tares of Matthew 13 are unbelievers who survive the Great Tribulation and are sent off to eternal punishment.

But as far as the typology involved in the theory of the post-trib Rapture is concerned, the point is this:

The Church isn't the wheat—we're the barley!

To be honest, I'm not vein-poppingly dogmatic about this interpretation of the barley and the wheat. It could be viewed this way and is by some people, but I do know of one other interpretation of the wheat and barley that also seems to make biblical sense.

It could also be that the barley only represents Jesus at the Resurrection, along with a number of Old Testament saints who were resurrected in Jerusalem at the same time (Matt. 27:52–53). It could be that all Church Age believers plus the Tribulation saints—those who miss the Rapture but are saved during the Tribulation—are represented by the wheat. Then, the rapture of Church Age believers would be considered the main harvest, while the gathering of Tribulation saints at the Second Coming could be the final stage of the wheat harvest, or what is called the "gleanings" in the Old Testament.

Plus, you could interpret the tribulum used to thresh the wheat as being the general trials and troubles Jesus promised to all believers, rather than strictly viewing it as the seven-year Tribulation proper.

But no matter how you look at it, the wheat being gathered in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares cannot be the rapture of the Church. It just doesn't make good biblical sense, because the Rapture has nothing whatsoever to do with the disposition of unbelievers (tares).

4. The Church will go through the Tribulation because...

God will preserve the Church through it!

Post-trib advocates believe that God will miraculously preserve the Church during the entire seven years of the Tribulation. I've always wanted to ask post-tribbers who believe this about the multitudes of people who are martyred for their faith in Revelation 6 and 7, during the Tribulation. Why doesn't God preserve them? What are they, unlucky?

I've witnessed the following eschatological "Who's on First?" routine a number of times:

"Did God preserve Noah from the flood or through the flood?"

(Uh, through the flood...)

"Did God preserve Israel from the Red Sea or through the Red Sea?"

(Uh, through the Red Sea...)

"Did God preserve Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fire or through the fire?"

(Uh, through the fire...)

"Will God preserve the Church from the Tribulation or through the Tribulation?"

(Uh...)

Sometimes a couple other events are mentioned, but these seem to be the standard three. Post-trib advocates like to spit these questions at people in a rapid-fire manner to elicit the desired response, which has the advantage of making the desired conclusion appear to be equally obvious—that God won't preserve the Church from the Tribulation, He'll preserve the Church through the Tribulation. Obviously.

One thing to note is that in the first three questions, although the rapid-fire delivery helps it slide by unnoticed, an assumption is being made:

The questions assume that the person or group being referred to represents or is a type of the Church.

But are they? Well, let's consider them one at a time.

1. Do Noah and his family represent the Church?

Many Bible experts see Noah and his family being preserved in the ark as representing the believing remnant of Israel being preserved by God during the Great Tribulation (most believe they will flee to the nearby mountains of Petra).

"OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Bible Dude, let's assume Noah and his family do represent Israel during the Tribulation. Then where's the Church?"

Glad you asked. Genesis records that Noah had a great-grandfather named Enoch, and also records something highly unusual that happened to him:

The Hebrew means just what it says: God took him. Took him up, alive and kicking. In other words, he was raptured. Does that make Enoch a picture of the Church? Well, consider this:

In his epistle, Jude is exhorting believers to faithfully defend the doctrines they had been taught by the apostles, and mentions the judgment that God will visit upon the world and all its wicked inhabitants in the end times. In the process, he makes an intriguing reference to Enoch:

God gave Enoch a vision of the end times in which he saw Jesus returning to judge the earth, accompanied by multitudes of saints. This is the Second Coming, and many believe He will be accompanied by the Church (some argue it is angelic warriors). We will have been raptured at least seven years or more prior to that, and we will be returning with Him to rule and reign during the Millennial Kingdom.

So it may be that Enoch saw a vision of the future Church returning with Jesus at the Second Coming. Does that make Enoch a picture of the Church? Well, consider this:

According to rabbinical tradition, Enoch was both born and raptured on the same date: the sixth day of the Jewish month of Sivan. It just so happens the sixth of Sivan corresponds to Shavuot, or the Feast of Weeks. Christians know this day as Pentecost: the day 50 days after Jesus' resurrection on which the Holy Spirit descended to indwell believers in power. In other words, the official birthday of the Church.

So, Enoch and the Church were born on the same day—Pentecost—and there are those who believe that if the Rapture actually does occur on a Jewish feast day (which it could, although there is no absolutely airtight biblical reason to think it will), Pentecost is by far the most logical choice.

No, not Rosh Hashana, or the Feast of Trumpets. I have refrained from climbing on that bandwagon because I am convinced that if anything happens on the Feast of Trumpets, it'll be the Second Coming. But that's a can of worms that will have to wait for another time.

I know all the arguments and I know many good people who are into the Raptashana thing, and I'm not going to sit here and rag on them. I love them all as brothers and sisters in Christ, but I just don't see it that way.

Here's a tidbit to gnaw on: What if the day of Pentecost two thousand years ago—the day the Church was born—was only the partial fulfillment of a feast that awaits its final fulfillment? I'm just saying.

Anyway, does that make Enoch a picture of the Church? I report, you decide. The point is that there is no biblical reason I know of to see Noah and his family as a type or model of the Church, while a strong case can be made for his great-grandfather Enoch.

2. Does Israel crossing the Red Sea represent the Church?

Stay with me now, because this is about to get heavy and I don't want it to fly over your head. Are you ready? OK, here we go:

Israel represents Israel.

3. Do Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego represent the Church?

Many Bible scholars also see these three Hebrew boys as a picture of Israel, and their fiery trial described in Daniel 3 as a picture of the Great Tribulation. But however you see them, these three young Hebrew men (probably mere teenagers at the time), deserve a closer look.

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah had been close friends of Daniel ever since all four of them had been taken captive when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem in 587 BC. Upon their arrival in Babylon, their names were changed: Daniel was given the name Belteshazzar, Hananiah became known as Shadrach, Mishael became Meshach, and Azariah was named Abednego. In the first and second chapters of Daniel, the names of all four boys are mentioned repeatedly. Throughout the first two chapters, it's Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. All four of their names (either Hebrew or Babylonian) are mentioned together a total of seven times throughout chapters 1 and 2.

In Daniel 3, however, which relates the story of how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are cast into the furnace for refusing to bow down to the golden image erected by the king, suddenly Daniel is nowhere to be found, never once being mentioned in the entire chapter.

All of a sudden, it's just Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and they are on their own, facing the fury of the king (a picture of the Jewish remnant enduring the persecution of the Antichrist).

Now, maybe it's just an interesting coincidence, and I realize that it can be explained away in a perfectly logical manner. However, Daniel is clearly a type of Christ (who shows up as the fourth man in the fire to save his three friends), and the Church is the body of Christ, and so many (this writer included) see this as being suggestive of the fact that the Church will be nowhere around during the Great Tribulation.

Remember: The Holy Spirit is the Author of all Scripture, and mentions things for a reason and doesn't mention them for a reason.

A coup de grâce

No discussion of the scriptural problems associated with the theory of the post-trib Rapture would be complete without mentioning a point that effectively kills it dead. I didn't add it to the above list because rather than being a defense that is offered to shore it up, it's a coup de grâce that shoots it down. I say "a" because there are other points that kill it just as dead, but this is one of my personal favorites because it's the $64,000 question that typically leaves most post-tribbers with their mouths hanging open. The question is this:

Who will populate the Millennial Kingdom?

This question addresses such a profound scriptural disconnect that every post-tribber I have ever asked has reacted like a deer caught in headlights. They tend to hem and haw and then change the subject.

But they cannot answer the question.

And the reason is simple: There is no answer. At least not from the Word, which is why they have to get creative.

I'm really not trying to be mean to post-tribbers (as much as my flesh would like to at times), but the theory of the post-trib Rapture leaves people with no scriptural answer whatsoever to the following question:

Where do the sheep mentioned in the Sheep and Goat Judgment (Matt. 25:31–46) come from? That is, who are the natural-bodied believers who will survive the Tribulation and be welcomed into the Millennial Kingdom to repopulate the earth?

It's not a trivial question, because several things are clear from Scripture:

• Believers who enter the Millennial Kingdom here on earth after the Tribulation will have children. That is, they will have natural bodies (Isa. 65:20).

• Believers who are taken in the Rapture (whenever it occurs) will all be changed and given glorified bodies (1 Cor. 15:51–53) and will neither marry nor have children (Matt. 22:30).

• All unbelievers who survive the Tribulation (the goats, or the previously mentioned tares) will be sent off to eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46).

That means that if the rapture of the Church occurs at the end of the Tribulation, the Church Age (or the Age of Grace) extends all the way to the Second Coming. That means all believers, be they Jews or Gentiles, who survive the Tribulation would be part of the Church—which is neither Jew nor Gentile but one in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). That means all believing Tribulation survivors would be raptured and be given glorified bodies.

So, all you post-tribbers out there...let me get this straight: The Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation, and all believers are raptured and given glorified bodies. All unbelievers who survive the Tribulation are sent away to eternal punishment. OK, by my count that leaves us with approximately zero people in their natural bodies to enter the kingdom.

That's nobody, plus or minus no one.

If the Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation, there is simply no scripturally consistent way to populate the Millennial Kingdom with natural-bodied believers. The post-trib Rapture theory falls apart and collapses into a pile of broken, twisted speculation.

Looks like Jesus is gonna be mighty lonely down here all by Himself...

There won't be anyone to enter the kingdom!

Of course, the pre-trib Rapture harmonizes all of this perfectly and logically in 15 seconds flat. Time me. (*click*) The Church will be raptured before the Tribulation begins. Millions of people—both Jews and Gentiles—will be saved during the Tribulation, and although many will be martyred for their faith, many will survive until the Second Coming at the climax of the Tribulation. These are the sheep who will enter into the Millennial Kingdom in their natural bodies. (*click*) Done.

Since we're on the subject, here's a related tidbit for you to consider. The Age of Law and the Age of Grace are theologically incompatible. That is, law and grace are mutually exclusive (Rom. 6:15; Gal. 2:15–21; 5:1–15). If the rapture of the Church occurs at the end of the Tribulation, which means the Age of Grace extends until the Second Coming, what are we supposed to do with Daniel's 70th Week?

Daniel's 70th Week is the fulfillment of the final seven years of the Age of Law, which was stopped seven years short of its completion at the Crucifixion after 483 years (or 69 of the 70 weeks). The Tribulation completes the 490 years (70 weeks) given to Israel in Daniel 9:24–27. Thus, the theory of the post-trib Rapture renders Daniel 9:24–27 meaningless allegory—or at the very least forces you into the waiting arms of preterism. Preterists insist all of Daniel's prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 (which is only possible if you read God's Word the same way you would read Grimm's Fairy Tales).

And that tangled post-trib web just keeps getting a little more tangled.

What seems to be the problem?

The bottom line is that after reading a lot of what post-trib advocates have to say in defense of the post-trib Rapture, two fundamental problems shine through as the source of most of the confusion:

• People fail to distinguish between Israel and the Church.
• People fail to study the Old Testament, which illuminates much of the New.

Sigh. You know, after talking to some of these guys, I almost get the feeling that they want to go through the Tribulation just so they can show how tough they are, and, what is infinitely more important, prove the pre-tribbers wrong.

Yes, it is aggravating, thanks for asking. I'm sure there are other reasons why post-tribbers think the Church will go through the Tribulation, but to the best of my knowledge none of them boasts any better scriptural support than the four mentioned above.

In addition to dispatching some of the usual suspects that are put forth by post-trib advocates in support of the post-trib Rapture, however, I would add the following observations:

• The pre-trib Rapture demands faith.
• The post-trib Rapture undermines faith.

• The pre-trib Rapture glorifies Jesus.
• The post-trib Rapture glorifies the flesh.

• The pre-trib Rapture encourages personal holiness.
• The post-trib Rapture encourages prepping.

• The pre-trib Rapture encourages people to store up treasure in heaven.
• The post-trib Rapture encourages people to store food in the basement.

• The pre-trib Rapture encourages people to look for Jesus Christ.
• The post-trib Rapture encourages people to look for the Antichrist.

A breed apart

There is always a certain amount of doctrinal bickering going on within the Church, and in some ways it can actually be healthy because it motivates people to really study the Word carefully—if for no other reason than to be able to effectively defend their doctrinal positions and to find flaws or contradictions in positions with which they disagree.

It seems that in the last few years, however, something a little more sinister has been developing. I've noticed that there seems to be a growing cabal of individuals out there who are getting caught up in this vitriolic, flesh-glorifying, seek-and-destroy mission to tear down and eradicate the doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture.

I want to stress that these are not merely sincere Bible-believing Christians who study God's Word and come away with the honest belief the Rapture comes at the end of the Tribulation. Or maybe believers who have innocently adopted the post-trib view without really studying it in detail because that's what they've been taught. I really can't say anything, because there is no shortage of people who believe in the pre-trib Rapture for exactly the same reason—because that's what they've been taught. There are tons of people in every doctrinal camp who, although passionate and sincere, are content to follow the bouncing ball and couldn't exegete their way out of a wet paper sack.

These guys, however, are a whole different breed, and I want you to be aware of them.

What little "faith" these people have is solidly grounded in their own strength and ability to survive the Tribulation. Their knowledge of the Bible scarcely extends beyond that which they can twist and misinterpret to make the post-trib view appear right and the pre-trib view appear wrong. They deny a literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation of Scripture, and their primary mission in life seems to be to mock, demonize, and crucify all those who believe in a pre-trib Rapture while posturing themselves as tough, gritty, spiritual Rambos who are up to the challenge of withstanding the worst both God and Satan have to dish out during the Tribulation.

They enjoy nothing more than viciously tearing down the faith of those who believe in the pre-trib Rapture, but who might not be sufficiently well versed in the Word to be able to vigorously defend it. They seem compelled by an unseen force to gleefully strip away the biblically sound hope of countless born-again believers and crush it under their heel like a cigarette butt—like the neighborhood bully who takes perverse delight in stomping on the shiny new bicycle you got for Christmas just because his father couldn't afford to buy him one.

Their steely resolve to tough out the Tribulation reeks of flesh, not of faith. In their minds, there is something inherently macho about the post-trib Rapture. Many are preppers, or at least have that same faith-in-the-flesh mindset. I happen to know for a fact that some of these people are in business selling supplies that appeal to preppers: guns, ammo, camping supplies, survival kits, and so forth. For such individuals, chatting up the post-trib Rapture may be bad theology, but it's good for business.

Their goal is to be sufficiently tough and well prepared to survive the Tribulation, and they drip with mocking disdain at all those silly pre-trib wimps that they imagine will be wailing "Waaa! Why didn't Jesus wapture us?!" throughout the Tribulation—or at least until they fall away from their flimsy faith and eagerly queue up to take the mark of the beast. Meanwhile, rough-and-ready post-tribbers will be holed up in their bunkers warm and dry, sharpening their hunting knives, cleaning their shotguns, and making their own beef jerky.

While they're not busy sowing discord within the body of Christ, that is.

Just as Don Quixote imagined that the windmills were grotesque giants that he felt compelled to attack, these people imagine that those who believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture are a vile infestation in the body of Christ that they must slay in righteous battle, and that God will be pleased with their service in stamping out these dangerous, despicable heretics.

When you stop and think about it, I suppose there is a certain machismo surrounding the post-trib Rapture. After all, what could be manlier than storing food and guns and being prepared to protect your family and ensure their survival during the Tribulation? I'm not one bit surprised that the post-trib Rapture appeals so strongly to people, especially men. It appeals directly to the flesh, which is Satan's not-so-secret recipe for success.

The post-trib Rapture is manly. It's muy macho.

Unfortunately that doesn't make it muy biblico.

It is important to remember that sincere, Christ-honoring believers can be dead wrong in their interpretation of certain doctrines, and still have a heart for God and His Word. I am confident that we are all wrong about something. In this case, however, it's not their bad doctrine that betrays them—it's the condition of their hearts.

The point I want to leave you with is that in these last days it is absolutely critical for us as born-again believers to read the Word, know what we believe and why, and arm ourselves with the Sword of the Spirit—God's Word—so we can vigorously respond in truth and in love when the doctrinal Don Quixotes of the world brandish their lances and come tilting at windmills to slay our faith and hope in God's promises.

Greg Lauer — OCT '13

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 OCT '13 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit