The Ins and Outs of Imminence

I had a strange experience recently. I received an email from a young gentlemen (whom I will refer to as J), and in it he asked me a question. I replied, and he emailed me back with his opinion on a point or two and asked my opinion on a point or two. I replied again, and we ended up exchanging several emails.

In the course of our exchange, J revealed the fact that he had begun to seriously question the doctrine of imminence, or the doctrine that the Rapture has always been a signless event that could occur at any time because there are no events in Scripture that must necessarily precede it. I could tell that J was a strong believer, held to a pre-trib view of the Rapture, and took the Revelation 12 sign of 9/23/17 quite seriously, which is one reason I took his concerns to heart.

I mean, I was thinking This is one of the good guys. If J had been a post-tribber or someone with an equally aberrant view of the Rapture and only wanted to argue about that, or someone who dismissed the REV12 sign as overly hyped rubbish, I would have passed. I would have just said:

Well, I certainly respect your opinion, but I beg to differ. So, you have yourself a lovely afternoon.

Or something along that line. But that wasn't the case with J, who simply had a skewed view of imminence. The worst part, however, was that his difficulties with imminence had pushed him to the point where it made him question the very nature of God. It seemed to me that J had reached the point where he believed that the doctrine of imminence—at least as he perceived it—turned God into a bit of a practical joker with a mean streak.

He seemed to think that the doctrine of imminence made God out to be someone who deliberately hid His plans from our view and apparently enjoyed jerking our chains by expecting us to remain ignorant of His prophetic Word, all while expecting us to gullibly believe the Rapture could happen "at any moment" when it clearly couldn't. He seemed disturbed by the fact that the second great sign of Revelation 12 (vv. 3–4) still had to occur before the Rapture, and groused about the fact that anyone who was sharp enough to see what God really meant in His Word could easily peek behind the curtain and understand that the Rapture couldn't possibly happen until certain events unfolded. In other words, J had built up a certain amount of what had the distinct odor of resentment:

If imminence is true, then just what kind of God is God, anyway?

I did my best to explain why I still believed in the imminence in the Rapture, and tried diligently to gently correct is out-of-kilter view of it. Like a number of people, J tended to look back on the past and question the concept of imminence from a future vantage point, and I tried to explain to him that imminence doesn't work that way. I tried to make him see that it only makes sense to talk about imminence from the present-tense viewpoint of the people in question, not looking back into the past from our point of view. For example, you can't look back into the past and say:

Well, clearly Israel had to become a nation again before the Rapture, so how could the Rapture have been imminent before 1948?

I tried to make him see that we can't logically do that. The Rapture was just as imminent from the present-tense viewpoint of people prior to 1948 as it was afterwards, because they didn't necessarily know for a fact that Israel had to be a nation again before the Rapture. In fact, the vast majority of the Church had completely written off the prophecies of Israel being restored as a nation as allegory, and you can't blame them for doing so. Prior to the late nineteenth century, anyone who actually clung to the preposterous notion that Israel would be re-established as an independent nation in its biblical homeland would have been considered clinically insane.

Not only that, but even though a handful (like J. N. Darby) rightly divided Scripture in a literal manner in regard to these prophecies concerning Israel, where does it say this absolutely has to happen prior to the Rapture? Of course, it makes a great deal of sense for it to precede the Rapture, but that's a different kettle of gefilte fish. What we think might happen or what we think makes sense and what God has revealed to us about His prophetic Word are often two different things. The bottom line is that there is nothing about this that violates the doctrine of imminence—before or after 1948.

In my last email to J, I told him that anytime somebody's interpretation of something in God's Word makes them question God's nature or His character, the fault lies in their interpretation, not with God.

But this isn't the strange part. In his last installment, J politely told me I had given him some things to think about, but I felt a bit deflated because I could tell from his remarks he still had the same skewed view of imminence. I was working hard on one last email to make him see this important doctrine in the proper light, and that's when something strange happened:

I accidentally deleted the entire conversation.

I was at one of the branches of my school, working on one of their computers (which would require a major upgrade to match the speed and efficiency of an abacus), and at one point my hand slipped and hit some unknown keys on the keyboard, and POOF.

It was gone.

I desperately tried everything I could think of to recover it, but to no avail. The entire conversation had vanished without a trace, along with any record of J's email address. So, I couldn't just email him and ask him to send me a copy of what we had written. And I could tell from his last installment that he was more or less signing off, so I had no reason to expect to hear back from him anytime soon. It was finished.

In the days that followed, however, the Holy Spirit began to work on me. He reminded me that many in the Church today reject the notion of the Rapture, let alone the idea of its imminence. Not only that, but many who do believe in the Rapture have made strong, concerted efforts over the years to attack and dismantle the idea of imminence in order to promote their errant notions about its timing.

The Holy Spirit reminded me that the doctrine of imminence, rightly understood and properly applied, is essentially the silver bullet that slays every view of the Rapture's timing except one, which it elegantly supports and confirms:

The pre-tribulation view.

As reviled as the pre-trib Rapture has become in many circles today, it should come as no surprise that the doctrine of imminence that so clearly and irrefutably supports it has become the victim of equally fierce (and equally biblically unsupportable) attacks.

I actually had no intention of writing about this topic, but the Holy Spirit had other ideas...so here it is. In this article, I want to do two basic things:

First, although the aroma of watchfulness and expectancy in regard to the coming of Christ to catch away the Church in the Rapture veritably pervades the entire New Testament, I want to take a quick look at seven of the verses that specifically support this doctrine (and there are others).

Second, I want to discuss some of the arguments people commonly use to attack the imminence of the Rapture, and get you to see just how weak and ineffectual they are.

So, why do we believe the Rapture is imminent?

Before we look at any particular Scriptures, let's establish some ground rules. First, let's set out to define what we mean by "imminence." This can be surprisingly tricky for what is in reality a fairly simple concept, partly because there are people out there who slyly attempt to redefine the word in ways that allow all manner of doctrinal malfeasance to pass muster, and partly because there are people who simply have a misconception of it.

Let's start with the simple version:

That's not too tough, is it? Or is it? Well, what about people like J, who seem to have the idea that we can look back on a past prophetic event and claim the Rapture couldn't have been imminent prior to that event? And if it wasn't imminent then, then imminence fails. OK, let's try this:

Better...but what about those who claim there are prophesied events in the Bible that have occurred that clearly had to happen before the Rapture? Does imminence depend on our ignorance of Bible prophecy?

Before I say any more, let's get something straight:

The full spectrum of meaning of everything
in God's Word is not ours to figure out.
It's God's to reveal at the appropriate time.

It's called "progressive revelation," and it calls for a bit of humility on our part. Sure, it's possible that a handful may have certain things rightly divided before most; but as far as the corporate body of Christ is concerned, progressive revelation is the order of the day.

OK, so how about this:

OK, now we're getting somewhere. But wait a second, what about those who say, for example, the Rapture can't be imminent because the second great sign of Revelation 12:3–4 hasn't happened yet?

"After all, we know full well that the first sign of verses 1–2 occurred on September 23, 2017, and surely the second sign of verses 3–4 has to occur before the Rapture depicted in verse 5 happens, right? So, so much for imminence."

To which I have a succinct, eloquent response:

Sez who?

Now, would it make sense for the second sign of verses 3–4 to precede the event of the Rapture in verse 5? Sure it would. Makes perfect sense to me. But does that mean it has to?

Nope. That there's whatchya call speck-yoo-lation, and last time I checked speculation was a poor substitute for God's revealed Word.

Imminence has nothing whatsoever to do with
what anyone thinks might happen before the
Rapture—only with what must happen before it.

So let's give our definition one last tweak:

I dare say that's about the best I can do. Now, on to the Word.

As far as whether a passage of Scripture supports the doctrine of imminence or not, most Bible teachers lay out several common qualifications. To lend support to the doctrine of imminence, the passage in question should satisfy at least one of the following four basic criteria:

1. It speaks of Christ's return as being at any moment.

2. It speaks of Christ's return as being "near," without stating that any signs or intervening events must precede His coming.

3. It speaks of Christ's return as something that brings comfort, hope, and encouragement to believers without indicating those believers will suffer any specific period of tribulation (i.e. general troubles and trials don't count).

4. It speaks of Christ's return as something that brings comfort, hope, and encouragement to believers without relating it to God's eschatological wrath or the judgment or disposition of unbelievers.

OK, let's see what the Word says—and note that I have listed these passages in the order in which they were written and indicated the approximate date for each passage. Later you'll understand why.

1. 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 (ca. AD 50–51).

In a general sense, we as believers experience three fundamental periods of time: (a) our lives before we got saved, (b) our lives after we got saved, and (c) our lives in heaven after the Rapture.

Paul refers to all three periods here: (a) when the Thessalonians were unsaved and worshiping idols, (b) when they were saved, having turned from those idols, and (c) a future time when Jesus will appear from heaven to deliver them from the "wrath to come."

But what "wrath to come"? Does Paul mean God's eschatological wrath or His final wrath?

In other words, does he mean believers will be rescued from the Tribulation, or that they just won't end up in hell? Since three chapters later (4:15–17) Paul describes Christ's appearance from heaven in his premier passage on the Rapture, the "wrath to come" mentioned here must logically be the same wrath Paul mentions a few verses later in 5:3, 9 as the wrath of God that falls during the Tribulation and precedes the Second Coming. In other words, other context within the epistle makes it completely clear Paul is talking about God's eschatological wrath, i.e. the Tribulation. And believers will be kept out of the time and place of that wrath—they will be untouched by it, and that is only possible if they are removed from the earth (in the Rapture) before it begins and remain so for the duration thereof.

Did you say "protection"? Or maybe you're convinced that verse 10 above really means that God will divinely protect the Church through the horrors of Tribulation in much the same way as He has promised to protect the Jewish remnant in the wilderness (Rev. 12:13–17). But in that case we have a major problem, because countless numbers of believers are going to be martyred during the Tribulation (Rev. 7:9–17), and they can't be the Jewish remnant. But if they are the Church (as opposed to Tribulation saints who not part of the Church), and this is God's idea of "protecting" the Church through the Tribulation, He doesn't seem to be doing such a great job of it. Just saying.

This passage clearly supports imminence since no intervening signs or events are mentioned as occurring prior to believers being delivered from the wrath of the Tribulation.

Finally, note that no exceptions are mentioned in regard to that deliverance from the wrath to come—it apparently applies to all believers.

2. 1 Thessalonians 5:4–11 (ca. AD 50–51).

Paul tells us that the day of the Lord, or God's wrath unleashed during the Tribulation, will overtake unbelievers like a thief in the night, since their moral state is that of darkness. In contrast, believers will not be so overtaken since they are of the day and of the light. The fact that "they" (unbelievers) will not escape clearly suggests that "we" (believers) will escape this period of wrath and great suffering.

Paul follows this with exhortations to be sober and alert, and to live a life characterized by faith, love, and hope. In verse 9, he reiterates the idea that believers are not destined for or "appointed" to wrath, and again—this is God's eschatological wrath during the day of the Lord.

But this keys on what I just said in #1: If the Church were not removed before the Tribulation, that would mean the day of the Lord will come on the Church (those of the day) in essentially the same manner as it comes on the world (those of the night), which would contradict Paul's clear distinction between the two groups and render his admonitions to watch and be sober pointless. If the Church were to enter into the Tribulation, then many of its members would be martyred. That means they would not be delivered, and that would contradict Paul's earlier statement in 1:10, where Church Age believers are delivered from the wrath to come, with no hint of any exceptions.

Paul is clearly presenting salvation as an alternative to experiencing God's wrath during the Tribulation, and even his words of encouragement in verse 11 precisely mirror those given in 4:18 ("Therefore comfort one another with these words") at the climax of that passage.

The bottom line is that this entire passage points with crystal clarity to not only a pre-trib Rapture, but an imminent pre-trib Rapture, since if the Rapture is not imminent and believers must indeed go through some specific period of tribulation first or some other prophetic event must precede it, then Paul's admonitions to watch and be sober in view of the coming day of the Lord seem oddly incomplete and his statement that believers are not appointed to wrath could easily be viewed as misleading. Or just wrong.

3. 1 Corinthians 1:7 (ca. AD 55).

In Romans 8:18–25, Paul describes how the sufferings that we as believers are currently going through cannot compare with our future glorification at the Rapture (v. 18). He talks about how we groan and eagerly wait for the redemption of our bodies (v. 23), and that we eagerly await this hope with perseverance (v. 25).

In the last verse of that passage (v. 25), Paul uses a form of the verb apekdechomai (to await eagerly and expectantly), and here in 1 Corinthians 1:7 he uses the same word again. This word is used eight times in the New Testament: once in Hebrews (author uncertain), once in 1 Peter, and Paul is responsible for the remaining six. All but the usage in 1 Peter are eschatological in nature.

Since it is "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" that they are "awaiting eagerly and expectantly" with no mention of anything else, this passage clearly supports imminence.

4. Titus 2:13 (ca. AD 62–64).

Well, I'd venture to say that few things are more "blessed" or "glorious" to believers than the Rapture, although some argue that Paul is referring to the Second Coming due to his use of the word epiphaneia (appearing, manifestation, glorious display).

However, Paul uses this same word a total of four times in the three pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), namely 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, and Titus 2:13, and in all four he presents the appearance of Christ as a joyous event free from any mention of any intervening tribulation or other signs or events, which he could have easily mentioned just as Jesus did in the Olivet Discourse when teaching about the Tribulation and the Second Coming. Thus, the exhortation to watch or "look for" His appearance rings rather hollow if something must in fact precede the Rapture.

5. John 14:1–3 (ca. AD 80–90).

First, notice that when Jesus says "If I go," He is not speaking of His death and resurrection. He is talking about going bodily to heaven to be with His Father (see v. 12). Also, the context of verses 4–6 makes it clear He is talking about heaven. Thus, when He follows that with "I will come again," He must also be talking about a literal, physical coming from heaven to earth (at least the atmosphere thereof)—not some allegorical, quasi-spiritual, pie-in-the-sky type of thing.

It is clear the "mansions" or "dwelling places" must be in heaven, where His Father dwells. Then when He comes again, He will "receive" us unto Himself, or take us to be with Him so we can be where He is.

And where is He? This may sound like a dumb question, but there are some who use this angle to try and argue that Jesus is just saying we will be with Him in the Millennial Kingdom here on earth. But the preceding context as well as what follows all point to the fact that Jesus is talking about heaven, not earth. He is preparing a place for us in His Father's house in heaven, and He's going to take us to be where He is, and that places Him (and us) in heaven. So, most people agree that this passage speaks of the Rapture, even those who disagree over its timing.

Also note there is no mention of any specific period of tribulation believers must go through, or of any intervening signs or events that must transpire before He comes to receive us unto Himself. Now, maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like the Last Supper—His final get-together with His beloved disciples before He would go to the cross—sure would have been a great time to get that straightened out...but there's nary a hint of such.

6. 1 John 3:2–3 (ca. AD 90–95).

The elements mentioned here—(a) Jesus appears, (b) we see Him as He is, and (c) we have become like Him (in our glorified bodies)—describe the essential elements of the Rapture.

Now, while it is certainly true that believers have other reasons to seek to purify their lives and live in a manner pleasing to God besides the imminent hope of the Rapture, this exhortation to do so in light of His return for us alone is significant, and is clearly supportive of imminence.

7. Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 (ca. AD 95).

Three times in the closing words of the book of Revelation, Jesus says He is "coming quickly." The same word is used in all three verses—the adverb tachu (quickly). I've discussed these verses before, but it bears repeating.

The thing about the word tachu is that the definition depends on whether you are talking about the actions of men or the actions of God. In the former case, it usually means "quickly" or "soon" in the normal sense. But in the latter case, it tends to mean "without unnecessary delay," and the reason seems simple enough to me:

Why exactly would an omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign God need to be in a hurry or decide to do something faster than originally planned?

Christ is coming without any unnecessary delay according to His Father's perfect plan, which suggests that (a) the date of the Rapture has been fixed since before Creation, and (b) it will be sudden, whenever it occurs. In addition, the fact that it is the Rapture that is being spoken of is reinforced by the reference to the fact that Jesus is coming to reward believers in verse 12. This is a reference to the bema—the judgment seat of Christ after the Rapture.

Done deal: Incidentally, the Bema not only follows the Rapture, but it apparently occurs before the Tribulation begins. The 24 elders in the throne room scene in Revelation 4–5 can represent nothing but the raptured Church, and they are already wearing their crowns of reward prior to the opening of the first seal judgment in chapter 6. I certainly won't be dogmatic about it, but the clear implication to me is that when the 24 elders are introduced in Revelation 4:4, the Bema is already a done deal.

In other words:

Before Jesus even takes the scroll to open the first seal, we are raptured, rewarded, and ready to rock and rule.

All seven of the preceding passages lend clear support to the imminence of the Rapture. There is one verse, however, that I have seen many people offer as one that supports imminence that comes from the book of James, but it ended up on the cutting room floor:

I decided to forgo this one because I am not convinced it speaks to the Rapture at all, and for two basic reasons:

1. The image James invokes of the judge standing at the door is highly uncharacteristic of the type of language used in other Rapture-related passages. The Rapture is always spoken of in terms of rejoicing and reward, not in terms of condemnation or judgment.

The only hint of judgment related to the Rapture is Paul's teaching on the Bema, or the judgment seat of Christ that follows the Rapture (1 Cor. 3:10–15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom 14:10). But that's an entirely different thing. That's "judgment" in terms of rewards for our works that qualify for such (or the possible loss thereof), not "judgment" in punitive terms that is meted out for sin and disobedience. Big difference.

2. It is conceivable that James didn't even know about the Rapture at the time he wrote his epistle. There is widespread agreement that the book of James was written between AD 44–49, while Paul first introduced the "mystery" of the Rapture to the Thessalonians in about AD 50–51.

Although we don't know for sure exactly when Paul received the revelation of the Rapture that he taught to the Thessalonians and later to other congregations, do you suppose he would have just sat on it and only revealed to a few select individuals (like, say, Jesus' brother James) for a couple of years before mentioning it in an epistle? Hmm...

The seven specific passages of Scripture we have looked at notwithstanding, it is important to realize that there has never been a time when people could look at God's Word and identify a prophesied sign or event that must of necessity occur prior to the Rapture, based on God's progressive revelation of Scripture up to that time. And that's the entire point. If that had ever been the case, the Church would have been foolish to watch expectantly for the Rapture as commanded in Scripture—they would have been watching expectantly for that...whatever that might have been.

Yet what are we told to watch and wait for, time and time again?

Christ's return to deliver His Church from the coming wrath.

So, how did the Rapture become imminent?

While there is no shortage of people who simply reject the doctrine of the Rapture outright, there are many who do claim to believe in the teaching of the Rapture but just have different perspectives on its timing with respect to the Tribulation...and as a result reveal the fact that they do not understand the concept of its imminence.

As I stated earlier, the doctrine of imminence only supports one view of the timing of the Rapture, and that's pre-trib. For all other views, or intra-trib views as I often refer to them, imminence is anathema. It is kryptonite for any theory that places the Rapture after the beginning of the Tribulation—it zaps it into molecular dust.

For any other view, you have prophetic events that must occur first, such as the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27, the confirmation of a seven-year peace treaty with Israel that launches the Tribulation. That's pretty specific, and that's one event that obviously must occur before any species of intra-trib Rapture.

We also have the abomination of desolation, when the Antichrist erects an idol in the holy place of the rebuilt temple and people are coerced to worship him as God on pain of death. That's pretty specific, too. For the great majority of intra-tribbers, both of these events are the on prophetic agenda prior to the Rapture.

If you are convinced that the Rapture will occur at any time after the beginning of the Tribulation, you must either (a) tweak the biblical concept of imminence to mean something slightly different so that you can force it to accommodate your view, or (b) come after it with guns blazing in a full frontal attack.

You have no choice.

In this article, I'm not going to waste my time with those who take the liberty of redefining the biblical usage of the word "imminent" in a way that allows it to peacefully coexist with their intra-trib flavor of choice. I see little point in getting caught up in what amounts to a hissy fit over the meanings attached to words. People take the dictionary definition of the word "imminent" or "imminence" and backfit this information into the biblical framework, and voilà. Problem solved, and it's adiós to imminence as it pertains to the Rapture.

I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh on these folks, however, because in reality they have a valid point—and here's why.

Modern dictionaries define the word "imminent" along the following lines:

imminent (adj.) — about to occur; threatening to occur immediately; likely to occur at any moment; impending; near at hand, etc.

The problem is that the meaning that has become associated with this word in regard to the Rapture has a slightly different nuance. Although, yes, the Rapture could happen soon or at any time, the eschatological meaning we have attached to the word "imminence" doesn't place strong emphasis on the Rapture literally occurring soon—it emphasizes the fact that no other prophetic event absolutely must occur first. There's no other event we know for certain that we should be anticipating prior to the Rapture. So watch!

The difference is subtle, but it's there.

As a result, using the modern dictionary definition of the word "imminence" or "imminent" to attack the biblical doctrine of the imminence of the Rapture is quite easy, and for one simple reason:

Strictly speaking, "imminent" wasn't the best choice of words.

I will be the first to admit that when I consider the Rapture-related meaning that has become associated with the word "imminent," it occurs to me that perhaps it wasn't the ideal term to use in the first place. Maybe a phrase like "next on the prophetic agenda from the viewpoint of those at the time" would have been more precise, albeit rather longish. But at least it might have spared us some inane arguments.

Speaking of which...a lot of the arguments people throw at the doctrine of imminence involve finding niggly-sniggly little ways of pinning down who said what to whom when and where to identify a point in time in the early days of the Church during the first century at which the Rapture couldn't have been legitimately viewed as "imminent" by someone.

"And if it wasn't imminent at that moment to that one person or group, then it can never be imminent to anyone, ever! HA! Game over!"

One typical example of this sort of thing is based on the following passage:

And the argument goes as follows:

"Well, if Jesus told His disciples they were going to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days, how in the world could His coming for them in the Rapture be 'imminent'? Answer me that, Mr. Pre-Trib Fib."

Believe it or not, I have seen perfectly sincere people use such an imbecilic argument to "attack" the doctrine of imminence, and by extension the pre-tribulation view of the Rapture. I'll get back to this dazzling gem in a moment.

Another example of a related species is based on the following passage. Paul has just testified before the Sanhedrin, and that night Jesus appears to Him:

The same people argue that since Christ told Paul that he would testify for Him in Rome (which he did a short time later), then obviously the Rapture couldn't happen before then. Rapture imminent? NOT!

This entire category of arguments, and there's a whole laundry list of them, can be collectively blown away like so many dry leaves with a brief review of how the Rapture became "imminent" in the first place (and as a result pre-trib, not to put too fine a point on it).

Let's start with the thunderingly obvious:

The doctrine of the Rapture, or Christ's return to catch up believers, both living and dead, to meet Him in the air so He can take us to be with Him in a place He has prepared for us in heaven was initially introduced in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians in about AD 50–51.

Paul had taught the Thessalonians extensively about the Rapture in person a few months earlier, and was writing this first epistle to them to clear up some confusion about the fate of believers who had recently died.

Understand that God revealed a number of "mysteries" to Paul, such as the mystery of Christ being God in the flesh, the mystery of the body of believers known as the Church, the mystery of Israel's partial hardening, and so on, and the mystery of the Rapture is one of them. A "mystery" in Greek is a musterion, and it has a very specific definition:

A musterion is something now being revealed by God (in the New Testament) that has never been revealed before (in the Old).

So...what am I saying?

I'm saying that prior to AD 50–51,
there was no Rapture to be imminent!

At least from the viewpoint of the first-century Church, that is. How could His disciples or anyone else look forward to the Rapture as being imminent if they had never even heard of the Rapture before?

Jesus didn't teach His disciples about the Rapture—His only reference to it in the Gospels is John 14:1–3 (discussed in #5 above), and His disciples were simply not in a position to fully grasp the reality of what He was saying at the time. We only know this passage is an oblique reference to the Rapture thanks to inspired writings that would come in the next several decades and the advantage of historical hindsight.

Now, after Paul received the revelation of the Rapture and taught it to the Thessalonians in AD 50–51, was this doctrine immediately known and digested throughout the entire Church? No, obviously not. A number of future New Testament writings that would be written during the next several decades by Paul and others refer to and elaborate on Christ's coming for the Church to deliver us from the coming wrath, and many of those would further reinforce the idea that no other event had to precede it.

But here's the thing:

Did these future New Testament writings all come right out and state point blank that the Rapture was imminent, or that no other prophetic event had to occur prior to it?

Uhm, not exactly. (Put...the pitchfork...down.)

Well, what did they say? As you can see from the above section, passages that touch on the subject of the Rapture tend to have one thing in common:

They are written in such a way that they
make the best sense if no other prophetic
event must occur prior to the Rapture.

In book after book, epistle after epistle, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from the AD 40s to the 90s, this joyous event was referred to a number of times. At each step of the way, the Rapture was always referred to in a way that really only made good sense if it were in fact the next event on the prophetic horizon. No other prophetic event is ever specified as definitively occurring before it, which seems a bit odd if in fact there were one. As a result, as the events of the first century played out, the Church increasingly embraced and digested the imminence of Christ's return for us in the Rapture.

The point is that it's not a stretch to say that it really wasn't until around the end of the first century, after the canon of the New Testament was complete in AD 95 and distributed throughout the Church that the teaching that no other specific prophetic event had to precede the Rapture became a fully and firmly established, scripturally supported, rightly understood doctrine throughout the entire body of Christ. That's one reason I listed the dates of the seven passages above that support imminence:

It's important to understand that the doctrine of imminence didn't fall off a fig tree half an hour after the Resurrection.

It was the entirety of the New Testament writings that solidified the message that no prophetic event had to precede the Rapture. But in the first few decades of the Church's existence, as this fledgling entity sought to gain its footing through the Holy Spirit-empowered efforts of the original apostles and a series of inspired writings that would become the New Testament, what do we see?

We see some confusion here and there. We see some heretical teachings creeping in under the door. We see some believers in various congregations departing from what they had been taught by the apostles.

Sound familiar? It should.

For example, in the Thessalonian congregation, there were some who had abandoned their work and any future planning because they were convinced the Rapture was right around the corner. According to some sources, these people actually thought such behavior constituted a grand display of their great faith, and Paul had to rebuke them in his second letter to their congregation. This was not the attitude Paul had taught them to cultivate, which was to watch and wait actively, and the message was clear:

Sure, the Lord could come soon...but it could be longer than you think.

So watch and wait, and in the meantime get busy and do your job.

Same old same old: Two thousand years later, we still have people who go so single-mindedly gaga over the Rapture that they do just as bad, if not worse.

And why does all of this matter?

It matters because it exposes all the niggly little arguments against imminence that are based on who said what to whom when and where in the first century as being the weak and ineffectual arguments they are.

For example, when Jesus told His disciples they would be baptized by the Holy Spirit in a few days, they knew absolutely nada about the Rapture...so please explain to me how the imminence thereof was an issue to them.

When Jesus appeared to Paul in Jerusalem (c. AD 59) and told him he would testify about Him in Rome, the doctrine of imminence was still in the process of being formulated and promulgated throughout the Church, Paul's personal revelation notwithstanding. Does that refute the imminence of the Rapture?

No, because the doctrine of the Rapture and its imminent nature was still in the process of being fully fleshed out, a process that would continue for the rest of the first century with additional epistles from the pen of this same apostle and other New Testament writers who would follow.

That's how the doctrine of the imminence of the Rapture became what it is, and those who come up with all these first-century niggly-snigglies in an effort to undermine it would do well to understand this.

Other arguments

As I did some research for this article, I was genuinely surprised how many arguments against imminence stem from people's inability to distinguish the Rapture from the Second Coming in Scripture. Such arguments are an epic fail from the get-go, but there are a number of them.

Most such arguments go on about events of the Tribulation and such, and either deliberately or unwittingly conflate Christ's coming in the air to rapture His Church with Christ's coming to earth to establish His kingdom. A straightforward, clear-minded reading of Scripture readily reveals these as two distinct events separated by a gap of at least seven years and quite likely more, but clearly not everyone got the memo.

For example, another argument I've heard against imminence is that Daniel's 70th Week must be fulfilled after Jesus' death. Therefore, after Jesus died, He couldn't have returned for the Church in the Rapture for at least seven more years. Imminence refuted!

Imminence refuted...NOT: Daniel's 70th Week (i.e. the Tribulation) will be fulfilled before the return of Christ to the earth to establish His kingdom at the Second Coming, not the Rapture. The Rapture is merely a preliminary event that serves as necessary staging for Daniel's 70th Week.

But as far as the embryonic Church in its first couple of decades is concerned, the following applies:

If no one knows about the Rapture, then it doesn't make
a lick of sense to talk about its imminence, now does it?

Sorry for sounding snarky, but there are people out there who just can't seem to grasp this concept. Again, the imminence of the Rapture is not a concept that exists in a vacuum—it only exists in the minds of people as a present-tense phenomenon RIGHT NOW, based on the revelation knowledge of His Word that God has revealed to the Church up to RIGHT NOW.

Another argument I've come across involves the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I've heard a number of people insist that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem He gave in the Olivet Discourse had to be fulfilled before the Rapture, and thus imminence is refuted.

I admit the logic of this one has me stumped, so I'll have to invoke my succinct, eloquent response again:

Sez who?

You can search all three versions of the Olivet Discourse until the camels come home and find nothing in them that requires Jesus' prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to be fulfilled prior to the Rapture (unless, of course, you solder it to the Second Coming).

All three versions of the Olivet Discourse were written in approximately the AD 50–60 time frame, and they recount Jesus' answers to four of His Jewish disciples' questions concerning the future of Israel during the Tribulation. Four Jewish disciples who knew nothing about the Church and even less about the Rapture, if that's possible. The Olivet Discourse had nothing to do with the Church or the Rapture when Jesus spoke those words to His disciples, and it had nothing to do with the Church or the Rapture when Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their versions of the discourse twenty-odd years later.

And it has nothing to do with the Church or the Rapture today.

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face:

As soon as you wedge the Church anywhere into
the Olivet Discourse, the wheels begin to come off.

I'm sorry, but I don't care who disagrees with me or why on this one. In my experience, reading the Church anywhere into the Olivet Discourse produces one and only one thing:

Spurious, divisive doctrine.

The post-trib Rapture, the partial Rapture, replacement theology, flat-out anti-Semitism, a brazen nullification of God's promises to His people, you name it. Now, if you see the Church somewhere in the Olivet Discourse, that's fine. I won't argue with you. But I don't, and neither can I see any scriptural justification for sticking it in there no matter how hard I try.

Now, does it make perfect sense in retrospect that the Rapture would come after the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? YES!!

And that fact has zero effect on its imminence, before or after AD 70.

Although it has no impact on imminence, it does remind me of something interesting that hit me while I was working on this article. I won't go into details here, but I believe the apostle John clearly represents or typifies the Church in many ways.

Well, OK...here's one:

Only John's Gospel completely omits the Olivet Discourse, Jesus' premier teaching on Israel during the Tribulation, which the Church has no part in whatsoever. Hmm...

God placed a partial hardening on Israel after they rejected their Messiah (Rom. 11:25), and has set them aside temporarily so He could build the Church. I believe the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 marked the formal beginning of God's turning aside from Israel, and so in a sense it also marked the corresponding beginning of His total focus on the Church. And that sets us up for one of the most exquisite aspects of New Testament history:

Guess which New Testament writer is the only one
we hear from after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Wow, you're a good guesser.

The Beloved Disciple finally speaks

Over the centuries there has been much controversy among scholars about when the various books of the New Testament were written, with some of the more skeptical among them wanting to place them well into the late second century or later (long enough after the actual events to make them easier to discredit). But modern archaeological evidence has effectively put the lie to such late-dating, and caused widespread agreement among many that the only New Testament writer to contribute his work to the canon after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was John.

After the fall of Jerusalem, John moved to Ephesus and there is strong evidence he wrote all five of his books between about AD 80–95: his Gospel, his three epistles, and the book of Revelation, the last being written after his exile to the Isle of Patmos in about AD 94–95.

One of the premier arguments against the imminence of the Rapture is based on something John wrote in his Gospel concerning Peter:

The argument goes like this:

"Well, since Jesus predicted that Peter would grow old and die, how on earth could the Rapture have happened before then? Sorry, but that makes your imminence thing kinda go up in smoke!"

Yeah, it might do some damage to imminence, if Jesus' remarks had been widely known throughout the entire Church early on (which they weren't), and if people in the first century had a way to receive timely news updates concerning the status of Peter, who was executed in Rome in about AD 64–67 (which they didn't), and (drum roll, please...) if this passage of Scripture hadn't been published and disseminated a couple of decades after Peter's death (which it was). Other than those minor details, you really got something solid there.

Sorry, but that makes this argument kinda go up in smoke.

Incidentally, there are people who argue strenuously for a much earlier dating of the Gospel of John, typically just prior to Peter's death in the mid-60s, or even earlier. Here's the plan: If they can find a way to get John's Gospel written prior to Peter's death, then they can create a brief window of time during which the Rapture couldn't have been imminent, since hypothetically everyone would have been waiting for Peter to die first, and it's death to imminence.

The primary passage used to support the effort to ascribe a much earlier date to John's Gospel is the following:

John goes on to describe Jesus healing a lame man by the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath, and as a result getting in the face of the Pharisees. The argument goes like this:

"John refers to the pool using the present tense, and that means the pool was there at the time he wrote his Gospel. But this pool was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, so that proves he wrote it prior to that, very likely before Peter died. That means from the time he wrote his Gospel until Peter's death, the Rapture couldn't have been imminent! Cha-ching! So, excuse us while we do the post-trib victory dance..."

It's true that in the Greek, John refers to the gate in the present tense, which many people insist is an indication that the pool existed at the time of writing. And yes, the Pool of Bethesda (which is just north of the Temple Mount), got caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The biggest problem is that there is strong evidence from a variety of reliable sources that John did in fact write his Gospel in Ephesus in around AD 80–90, the grammatical "anomaly" of one single word notwithstanding. Many believe John was simply using the historical present, which is perfectly plausible.

Others argue that while the Romans may have damaged the pool, they didn't actually "destroy" it. According to some sources, the Pool of Bethesda was in fact used again after AD 70, some say until the sixth century, and the archaeological remains of it can be viewed today. So, it's not as if it simply ceased to exist after AD 70—it didn't. Thus, John may not have felt compelled to use the past tense in its regard—the pool was still physically there.

Some argue that John's Gospel must have been written prior to AD 70 since he mentioned neither Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction nor the fulfillment thereof in AD 70. Well, if John wrote his Gospel at least 10 and possibly as much as 20 years after the event, then it was a well-established historical fact by that time. In that case, he may well have seen no need to mention something that had become a fact of life—the dust had pretty well settled by that time.

Not only that, but unlike the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the primary purpose of John's Gospel is not to give yet another synopsis of the events of Jesus' ministry. After all, not to take anything away from the synoptics, but they already had three of those. John's Gospel is by far the weightiest of the four, and he tends to spend more time digging deeply into the theology of who and what Christ was—there is a greater emphasis on Christ's divinity, His miracles, etc.

For example, rather than crank out a fourth version of the Olivet Discourse on Israel's future and the Tribulation, John spends five whole chapters on the Last Supper Discourse, where Christ blows their hair back with some astounding spiritual revelations about Himself and what He had come to do and was about to do, promises them the Holy Spirit, and so on.

So, considering the overall context of John's Gospel, it's easy to understand why John felt no special compulsion to drop a reference to a historical event that had long been a universally known and accepted reality.

Takin' notes: It's even conceivable that John wrote down bits and pieces of His Gospel many years earlier and kept them as his personal notes before finally sitting down and finishing the project in the AD 80s.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody knew about Jesus' prophecy concerning Peter's fate prior to John writing his Gospel—there were those who heard of Jesus' prophecy through the grapevine, so to speak. As a result, there were rumors circulating throughout some circles in the Church that the Rapture couldn't happen until after Peter died.

But notice something here. Let's go back and reread what Jesus said:

Did Jesus actually say Peter was going to die or be crucified? No. All we really know for certain is that Peter would grow old (and by the time these words were widely circulated throughout the Church, Peter was already old enough to be considered "old" by first-century standards). The rest of the prophecy is open to interpretation.

Now, there were a few who interpreted it to mean Peter was to be crucified—which he was (upside down at his request, since he felt unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as the Lord). Hence the rumors...but there's the rub:

Rumors are a lot like speculation: Both are poor substitutes for God's revealed Word.

Only when John wrote (and took the time to explain) this prophecy in his Gospel did it become part of God's revealed Word...about two decades after the fact of Peter's death.

So, the bottom line is that this passage doesn't touch the imminence of the Rapture with a 10-foot pool...er, pole.

The takeaway on the catching away

I don't want to leave you with the feeling that this article is all just about a bunch of arguments—about who's right, who's wrong, and so forth. There is something infinitely more important at stake.

What's at stake is nothing less than how we view the Rapture—Christ's return to catch us away to be with Him for eternity and deliver us from the coming wrath of the Tribulation.

Do we:

a. Lump the Rapture in with the Second Coming at the climax of the Tribulation, thus reducing the Rapture to a mere eschatological footnote? Do we busy ourselves playing Pin the Tail on the Antichrist, storing food and guns in the basement, and figuring out potential ways to escape his grasp when terrifying judgments begin to befall the entire world with a hapless Church still in it?

Or do we:

b. Allow the blessed hope of His return for us in the Rapture to give us a special source of motivation to purify our lives as we watch and wait eagerly, actively, and expectantly? Do we busy ourselves doing the work God has set before us—sharing the gospel and growing in grace—knowing that He could conceivably catch us away at any time? At the same time, do we freely admit that we do not know when the Rapture will occur and soberly embrace the realization that it could easily be longer than we think, thus humbly acknowledging God's sovereignty and honoring the preeminence of His perfect plan?

Don't know about you, but I'll take one from Column B.

Oh, and J, if you happen to be reading this, feel free to contact me and let me know what you think about what I have written.

P.S. The snarky bits don't apply to you personally. =;)

And I promise to be more careful when I use my school's computer.

Greg Lauer — JUN '20

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 JUN '20 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit