A Pretribulational Rapture – A Critique

The following is a critique of A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford

This critique was written in response to a comment on another one of my posts asking me to comment on the assertions that were made by James Rochford in an article he published online at http://www.evidenceunseen.com/. This critique should not be construed as being personal. I have not met with or spoken with James Rochford and based on what I discovered on the rest of his website, I think we would agree on most other issues. Having said that, in order to respond to the question that was asked of me, I thought this would be a good opportunity to provide a reasoned response that challenges Rochford’s assertions.

A careful reading of the articles on nopretrib.com will demonstrate that most if not all of the issues raised by James Rochford’s article have already been addressed here in other posts. But for the sake of the question addressed to me and for the sake of those who may also have been influenced by his article, I will run through it and point out the weaknesses of James Rochford’s arguments. I’ll start by sharing what we agree on for the most part.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
It is important to note that this is non-essential doctrine. In the end, it is relatively unimportant when the rapture will happen; it is more important that it will happen. Moreover, the premillennial position does not hinge on the rapture. Instead, the timing of the rapture is an in-house discussion within the premillennial view.

It is true that this is a non-essential doctrine. And it is true that rapture timing is in in-house debate among premillennialists that take a more literal view of Bible prophecy and believe that the 1000-year kingdom of God on Earth is a literal 1000 years.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Revelation 20:1-10

Here is where I disagree with his opening statement:

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
In the end, it is relatively unimportant when the rapture will happen; it is more important that it will happen.

Here is why the timing or the rapture is important. There is no significant negative consequence for believing that the rapture will be post-tribulational (with the exception of dealing with the scorn that so many pre-tribulationists have for us). On the other hand, if Christians are going to go through a period of time that Jesus characterized as a time when, “…there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.” Then it will be incumbent upon disciples of Jesus to understand the times and to know and be prepared for what is coming. If one says that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 is only intended for a Jewish audience, they are mistaken. Consider all the warnings and ask yourself, “If this does apply to Christians living in the time immediately preceding Christ’s return how much more should I heed those warnings?” Warnings like, don’t be misled, false teachers coming in His name, don’t be frightened, you’ll be hated and persecuted and killed, many will fall away, believers will betray and hate one another, false prophets and teachers will lead people astray, lawlessness will increase, love will grow cold, endurance will be needed to be saved, there will be false christs and an antichrist that will put himself in the place of God. You may have to give your Christian witness in court, children will deliver their parents to death, not to mention more war, pestilence, earthquakes, and death.

Ok that was prologue. Now to the points.

The first thing I take issue with is the initial chart that begins with the heading: TIMING OF THE RESCUE. Since Paul is the one that introduces the idea of the rapture in the first place, let’s ask ourselves when looking at those passages, does Paul characterize the rapture as a rescue? 1 Corinthians 15 does not seem to indicate so. Most people just read vss 51-53 which states:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 1 Corinthians 15:51-53

However, in context, Paul is speaking to their questions about the resurrection beginning in vs 35.

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 1 Corinthians 15:35

This is the context in which Paul explains to them that when the dead are raised at Christ’s coming, living believers will be resurrected into a new incorruptible body that will not decay or die. Very exciting indeed, but no mention of rescue here. It is simply matter of fact.

How about the other places?

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say 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 and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Clearly a rapture passage here. Is the subject of rescue mentioned here? I don’t see it. The context here centers around the concern for the believing friends and relatives that have died. He says, “don’t grieve.” Why? Because we will be reunited either in death or at the Lord’s return. That’s what the comfort is, being reunited with our loved ones, not being rescued from the tribulation. Rescue from the tribulation is not mentioned or even hinted at here.

One more rapture passage, 2 Thessalonians. Here as everywhere in scripture context matters. And as most pretribulationists do, they start in chapter 2 and miss the context of the preceding chapter. In this case, rescue is indicated and chapter 1 tells us precisely when this rescue occurs.

This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-8

When does relief come? When Jesus is revealed from Heaven with His angels in flaming fire. Based on that, if the rapture is a rescue, it happens at the end when Jesus comes in vengeance.

Now when we look at Chapter 2, we understand from the context that deliverance comes at the very end, establishing the fact that the rapture and the second coming happen at the same time.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the coming of the Lord and our gathering to Him) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5

Wait a minute. These early believers were mistakenly thinking the day of the Lord had already come. If Paul had taught pretribulationism, he would have said that it would not be possible for the day of the Lord to have passed because the rapture would have to happen first. But that’s not what he said. He said that first the things that Jesus mentioned in the Olivet discourse would happen and he refers to the abomination of desolation and the great apostasy that Jesus predicted in three of the Gospels. Wait another minute. If those warnings were just for the Jews, then why would Paul mention that to the Gentile Thessalonians?

From here James Rochfort begins to lay out what he claims are the Posttrib arguments against Pretrib. This methodology in and of itself is faulty because it lends itself to the Straw-Man logical fallacy which is to misrepresent, mischaracterize, or oversimplify the position of another and then argue against it. It also omits some of the stronger arguments that may be used to defend postribulationism or counter pretribulational arguments. However, I will address all 6 of what he calls postribulational claims.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
CLAIM #1: There is no reason to believe that the rapture and the second coming are two separate events. Both events are described with the same word (Greek parousia). Seeing a pre-tribulation rapture and the second coming as two events is needlessly confusing.

I actually agree with this claim so let’s see why James Rochfort thinks this to be an erroneous view. He begins by saying:

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Consider a Jewish rabbi living two hundred years before Christ. If you had told him that there would be two comings of the Messiah, he would have laughed in your face! And yet, in hindsight, the OT does undoubtedly predict a suffering servant (Isa. 53; Zech. 12) and a conquering king (Dan. 7:13-14; Isa. 9:6-7). Likewise, there are multiple clues which indicate that the rapture and the second coming are two separate events:

This is definitely starting out on the wrong foot. He begins by making an appeal to an analogy instead of directly to what the scripture says. Not only is it a bad idea, it is also a bad analogy. First of all, it is presumptuous to claim to know what a 2nd century BC rabbi would say since we don’t have one to interview. I doubt such a rabbi would laugh in the face of one who suggested that the Messiah would come twice to fulfill both roles. In-fact, it is well known within Judaism then and now that there are apparent contradictions in what the Messiah would do. Therefore, the rabbis came up with the 2 Messiah’s theory which persists in some Jewish circles to this day. That is that there would be a suffering Messiah that called Messiah ben Joseph that identifies with the unjust suffering that Joseph endured resulting in salvation for the Hebrews, and another Messiah they call Messiah ben David who would come to rule and reign. Jesus’ claim to be both certainly convinced Rabbi Saul of Tarsus and Nicodemus among others. They did not fully understand at first but came to later. In the case of pretribulationism you’re putting the cart before the horse. If the earlier Jews could not fully understand these prophecies before they were fulfilled, then neither can anyone divide the second coming into to two second comings until after the fact. To do so without clear Biblical substantiation is nothing but speculation. Clues are not enough. What is needed is clear convincing evidence. Which is ironic considering the website is called EvidenceUnSeen. I agree, I don’t see the evidence either. There is no justification to divide the second coming into a second and a third.

The other arguments listed below this first point do not address the initial point of dividing the 2nd coming into 2 distinct comings. Instead, they merely rehash the typical pretrib talking points all of which can be refuted Biblically.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
First, there is no mention of the “church” from Revelation 4 until Revelation 22. If the church is present on Earth at this time, it is odd that it is not mentioned. Repeatedly, in Revelation 2-3, we read, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). But later, in Revelation 13:9, we read, “If anyone has an ear, let him hear…” There is a conspicuous difference between the two statements. One is directed to the church; the other is directed to anyone left on earth.

Let’s start with the mention of the word “Church” in the book of Revelation. But first, just to put the entire book in context, let’s look at the first 9 verses in chapter 1.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:1-8

Notice who God gives this to? His bond-servants. Does he delineate between who it is for; i.e. part for the Church and part for Israel? No, it is to His bond-servants. When John says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it;” is there any indication that heeding should only fall into their prescribed categories? Yes, but only insofar as it applies to the seven Churches. And here again Jesus describes his appearing, “BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.” Coming once or coming twice? Looks like once to me. And look what it says at the end of the book.

“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” Revelation 22:16

This whole book is for the Churches, it couldn’t be clearer. But what about the lack of the word Church from chapters 4-21? Two points bring this argument crashing down. The first is that it is an argument from silence which means: to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on presence. Arguments from silence cannot establish anything, especially when exegeting scripture. You have to interpret based on what is there, not what is not there.

The word church does not appear in 2 Timothy, Titus, 1st and 2nd Peter, 1st and 2nd John, and Jude. Are we to conclude from this that these epistles are not for the Church because the word church does not appear in them? Of course not. There is a word however, that appears numerous times throughout the book of Revelation, it is the word saints. That brings me to the second point.

Saints appear 13 times in the book of Revelation and 12 of those occurrences can be found from chapters 4-21. Why is this significant? Because the word saint which is from the Greek word Hagios appears 229 times throughout the New Testament. In every instance the meaning is clearly indicative of Christians. So why is it that when we get to Revelation, Hagios now has a new meaning? Instead of referring to Christians, we are told it refers to a novel new kind of believer called a tribulation saint or maybe one of the 144,000 Israelites. There is no justification from scripture to redefine the word saint except to support pretribulationism.

Again, this is putting the cart before the horse. We shouldn’t make scripture conform to our presupposed doctrines. We should allow scripture to speak for itself in the simplest terms and form our beliefs around that.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Second, both the OT and NT refer to the tribulation as an event in Israel’s future—not the Church. For instance, in the book of Revelation (ch. 4-19), Israel is mentioned in the tribulation—not the church. Jesus taught that there would be a temple in Israel (Mt. 24:15), and he spoke about the believers “in Judea” (Mt. 24:16). He also claimed that Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lk. 21:24), which implies a Jewish regathering at this time. Jeremiah refers to this period as a time of “Jacob’s distress” (Jer. 30:7). Daniel 9:24-27 is given to “your people” and “your holy city,” rather than the church: The final seven years (the tribulation of Daniel 9:27) is given for Israel—not the church. The church was a mystery in the OT—not foreseen by the prophets.

This is a half-truth. The Old and New Testaments do speak of the tribulation in Israel’s future. But to assume that this necessitates the Church’s absence is not warranted. There is no reason from scripture to make such an assumption. It is also untrue that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. You will find it in many places: Gen 22:18, Gen 26:4, Psalm 67, Psalm 98, Isa 11:10, Isa 49:1-6, just to name a few. It is also true that besides being “Jacob’s trouble” it will also be a time of trouble for the nations. Just read Joel or Zechariah. In the New Testament, it is a time of trial and testing for the Church and National Israel. The idea that when Jesus speaks to His disciples prophetically concerning the future that the Church is excluded is nowhere taught in scripture. Nowhere.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Third, there are mortals who die off in the millennium. Isaiah writes, “For the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed” (Isa. 65:20). Under an amillennial view, Isaiah 65 refers to heaven—not the millennium. But how can people die at all in heaven? Clearly, Isaiah believed that people would die in millennium—not heaven. However, at the second coming, believers will all get “immortal” and “imperishable” bodies (1 Cor. 15:51-53). By contrast, non-believers will be judged and defeated by Christ. Paul writes, “They will not escape” (1 Thess. 5:3), and “They all may be judged who did not believe the truth” (2 Thess. 2:12). If believers are immortal and non-believers are killed, who can die in the millennial kingdom? Jesus taught that his second coming would result in non-believers being taken to judgment: “Just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth… So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous” (Mt. 13:40-42, 49; cf. Mt. 24:31, 39-41; Lk. 17:33-35). John writes that at the second coming “the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh” (Rev. 19:21). Isaiah writes, “[God] will exterminate its sinners from it” (Isa. 13:9). Paul D. Feinberg writes, “If all righteous are glorified before the Millennium and all wicked excluded from the kingdom, where do the people in non-glorified bodies come from to populate the Millennium?”

Again, another false assumption that everyone in the world dies at the second coming. This is not a Biblical position either. If there is any doubt, listen to what the Prophet Zechariah says:

Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. Zechariah 14:16-19

So according to this prophet, who we know speaks for God, declares that although there will be a great slaughter of those who go against God and His people (read the preceding verses in Zech 14, it is the Day of the Lord), some will survive. So this argument creates a problem that in actuality does not and will not exist in the future.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Fourth, the rapture is imminent. Jesus taught that his second coming would be preceded by various specific signs (Mt. 24:4-34), making it non-imminent. However, the early church lived in the expectancy that Jesus could return at any moment. The church is told to watch for Jesus (1 Thess. 5:6; Titus 2:13; Rev. 3:3), but they are not told to watch for any signs. If Jesus comes to rapture the church before the signs, then this would still make his coming imminent (c.f. comments on Jn. 21:18).

This is one of the easiest to refute. First, it continues to assume the premise that there are two second comings. But Paul put things in front of the rapture as previously discussed. Those being the apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist. Those are two signs that precede the rapture and therefore prove that the rapture is not imminent. There is a big difference between imminence and expectancy and the two should not be conflated. The early Church had expectancy. Why, because they were looking at what Jesus said the signs would be, and based on that, were expecting Jesus to return soon. They had no reason then to believe that the Lord intends to return farther into the future. Many thought Nero was the Antichrist, they had seen Jerusalem destroyed, and many other things including apostasy with the rise of Gnosticism and those who denied the faith (fell away) when their lives were threatened. The only thing imminent to the early believers was death, which is imminent for us too. None of the verses cited above teach an imminent rapture.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Fifth, there are other dissimilarities between the rapture and second coming. Consider a number of examples:

-The rapture describes the removal of believers from the Earth (1 Thess. 4:17), but the second coming describes the coming of believers to the Earth (Rev. 19:14).
-At the rapture, believers meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess. 4:17), but in the second coming, believers meet Jesus on the ground (Zech. 14:4).
-In the rapture, believers are resurrected during Jesus’ descent (1 Cor. 15:52), but in the second coming, they are resurrected after Jesus slays enemies, judges beast and false prophet, and binds Satan (Rev. 20:1-4).
-When the message of Jesus’ coming is given to the Church, it is given as a message of comfort (1 Thess. 4:18; 1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6). However, when it is given to Israel, it is a message of warning and judgment (Isa. 13:6, 9; 34:8; Ezek. 30:3; Amos 5:18; Zeph. 1:7-13; 1 Thess. 5:2; 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:2).
-Believers in the church age are told to look for Jesus (Titus 2:13), but believers in the tribulation are told to look for signs (Mt. 16:2-3; Mt. 24:4-34).
-Paul calls the rapture a “mystery,” which was not revealed in the OT (1 Cor. 15:51). Both the second coming (Dan. 7:13-14; Zech. 14:1-5) and the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:25-26; Ps. 22:29) were repeatedly taught in the OT, so Paul couldn’t be describing either of these.

Starting with a false premise will usually lead to a wrong conclusion. There are two false premises here. The first is the ongoing assumption that these are two distinct, separate and unconnected events to begin with. The second false premise is assuming that dissimilarity between descriptions of an event equals descriptions of different events. I’ll illustrate. Let’s take for example the Gadarene Demoniac. Let’s compare the accounts. This story appears in Matthew 28, Mark 5, and Luke 8, in them we read:

When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them. The demons began to entreat Him, saying, “If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.” And He said to them, “Go!” And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters. The herdsmen ran away, and went to the city and reported everything, including what had happened to the demoniacs. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region. Matthew 8:28-34

They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain; because he had often been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him. Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones. Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; and shouting with a loud voice, he *said, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!” For He had been saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And He was asking him, “What is your name?” And he *said to Him, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” And he began to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. The demons implored Him, saying, “Send us into the swine so that we may enter them.” Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea. Their herdsmen ran away and reported it in the city and in the country. And the people came to see what it was that had happened. They *came to Jesus and *observed the man who had been demon-possessed sitting down, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the “legion”; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and all about the swine. And they began to implore Him to leave their region. Mark 5:1-17

Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs. Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.” For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had seized him many times; and he was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard, and yet he would break his bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert. And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered him. They were imploring Him not to command them to go away into the abyss. Now there was a herd of many swine feeding there on the mountain; and the demons implored Him to permit them to enter the swine. And He gave them permission. And the demons came out of the man and entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned. When the herdsmen saw what had happened, they ran away and reported it in the city and out in the country. The people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it reported to them how the man who was demon-possessed had been made well. And all the people of the country of the Gerasenes and the surrounding district asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear; and He got into a boat and returned. But the man from whom the demons had gone out was begging Him that he might accompany Him; but He sent him away, saying, “Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for you.” So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him. Luke 8:26-39

Let’s look at the commonalities first. The setting: All three accounts agree that this happened immediately following a crossing of the Sea of Galilee when Jesus had calmed a fierce storm at His command and by His authority. The place is called the Gadarenes or the Gerasenes depending on the which of the three accounts is being read and/or the English version of the account. So I would not consider this to be a significant difference. The possessed person(s) came from or lived among the tombs. All three accounts have the demons saying, “What business do we have with you?” In all three cases, the demons were concerned about being tormented. In all three accounts, the demons ask to be sent into a herd of swine. In all three accounts, Jesus gives the demons permission to enter the swine. In all three accounts, the demons enter the heard of swine, rush down a steep cliff, and drown in the sea. In all three accounts, the herdsman ran away. In all three accounts, people returned from the city. And in all three accounts, the people asked Jesus to leave. Based on the overwhelming similarities, it should appear to be reasonable to conclude that all three accounts are describing the same event.

But, they are not all same. Matthew’s version says that there were two demon-possessed men, the other accounts only mention one. Would it be reasonable to assume based on this difference in detail that these accounts are describing two different events? No, it would not. But that’s not the only difference. Matthew says that no one could pass by where the 2 demoniacs dwelt. The other to do not mention this. Mark and Luke mention that the demoniac could not be bound with chains, that he continually broke them. See a pattern here? Just from these two differences in the accounts, it could be argued that they are describing two unique events that have similarities.

This is just the beginning of the dissimilarities in the accounts. But who after reading all three accounts would come away with the conclusion that these are two different events? Hopefully, no one reading this article. Yet that is precisely what pretribulationists do. They take dissimilarities in the Biblical references to the second coming and conflate them into two different comings. It is not necessary to answer every proof text that a pretribulationist uses to divide the second coming into a second and a third because it is the false premise itself that is the issue.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Sixth, there are repeated allusions to the church being spared from the tribulation. For instance, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul begins by describing the rapture (4:13-18), then he describes the tribulation (5:1-9). If this is chronological, it implies that the church will be raptured before the tribulation. Paul writes, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9). Salvation (Greek sōtēria) is spoken of in multiple senses in the NT. Most of the time, it refers to being saved from hell. However, it also refers to being rescued from the perils of wealth (Lk. 19:9), the evil age (Acts 2:40), Egypt (Acts 7:25), or physical danger (Acts 27:34). The context in this passage is not the wrath of hell; it is the wrath of the tribulation. The tribulation period is spoken of as the “wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16; cf. Rev. 15:1; 3:10).

First in 1 Thessalonians 4-5, Paul does not say God is going to spare them from tribulation it does say that He will spare them from His wrath. These things are not the same. Tribulation (thlipsis) has to do with trial, with difficulty. Whereas wrath (orge) is reserved for God’s enemies. Where pretribulationists err is in conflating these things. When Jesus returns, He is coming in wrath (orge). What precedes His coming is tribulation (thlipsis). I deal with this subject in Spared From God’s Wrath.

The next thing that James Rochford does is introduce another erroneous chart titled: ADVANTAGE OF THE PRE-TRIBULATION VIEW. Whether there is an advantage or disadvantage of a particular view of prophecy should have absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of a Biblical interpretation. Otherwise we end up interpreting scripture based on what we think is advantageous to us or is pragmatic instead of simply taking God at His word. This method is dangerous.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
CLAIM #2: These apparent contradictions can be harmonized. For instance, perhaps we meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess. 4:17) only to follow him to the ground (Zech. 14:4). In the same way, the four gospels have apparent inconsistencies about the resurrection of Jesus, but these can be harmonized and clearly describe the same event.

Douglas J. Moo offers this argument.”However, it isn’t fair to compare the rapture and second coming with the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. The rapture is in the future, but the resurrection was in the past. If we are committed to inerrancy, the events of the resurrection must be harmonized, because they have already occurred. However, the rapture and second coming haven’t occurred yet, so we are not obliged to harmonize them. While it’s possible to harmonize these inconsistencies between the rapture and second coming, it isn’t probable. We shouldn’t make our conclusions based on possibility—but probability.”

I have already dealt with this in my example of the Gadarene Demoniac. This is an appeal to authority of a scholar rather than an appeal to scripture. Rochford merely quotes a scholar’s opinion while ignoring the meat of the argument. I do agree with Moo in that conclusions are better based on probability rather than possibility. However, while it may be possible (doubtful) that there are two future second comings (oxymoron), it is not probable that there are based on the preponderance of Biblical and historical evidence.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
CLAIM #3: Two key passages about the rapture also mention a trumpet (1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:52). In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:52 states that the rapture will occur “at the last trumpet.” The “last trumpet” of the book of Revelation occurs at the END of the tribulation.

The symbol of the trumpet is not only mentioned in Revelation. It is also mentioned in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24:31) and in the OT (Zech. 9:14; Is. 27:13; Ex. 19:16). Therefore, we have to discern which trumpet this is referring to.

It is doubtful that Paul is referring to the last trumpet of Revelation (in 1 Corinthians 15), because the book of Revelation wasn’t even written yet! In fact, it wouldn’t be written for another 40 years. It is more likely that Paul is drawing this imagery from the OT. In the book of Numbers, the trumpet referred to “summoning the congregation” of Israel to “gather themselves” together to “set out” (Num. 10:2-5). In Ezekiel, this was also used as a “warning” to the people (Ezek. 33:1-7), as it is in Jeremiah 6:17 (‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But you said, ‘We will not listen.’”).

Both symbols could be in view here. The rapture will be both a time of gathering for God’s people, and it will be a warning to the nation of Israel, who will remain on Earth.

This statement begs the question; why did Paul call it the last trumpet? Rochford does not answer this question and it is a key question. If Paul is trying to draw on an Old Testament example that deals with trumpets, and I agree he is, the obvious choice would be Joshua’s conquest of Jericho. At the last trumpet, the city was destroyed. Paul says at the last trumpet we will be translated and brought into the presence of Jesus. What better time than to accompany Him as He subues the nations as Joshua subdued Jericho. As for the argument that Revelation was written 40 years later does not contradict this interpretation. Instead, it reinforces it. The examples that Rochford cites ignore the significance of the trumpet being the last trumpet.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
CLAIM #4: The doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture is just wishful thinking. It reflects the soft, comfortable mentality of 21st century Christians in the West, who desire to avoid suffering and persecution.

Self-interest does not invalidate a biblical teaching. Consider if we applied this line of thinking to justification by grace through faith. An arguer could claim, “You only believe that we are justified apart from works, because it’s easier for you to deal with!” While it is true that salvation by faith is infinitely easier than works, this does not invalidate this biblical teaching. If we used this logic, we would need to throw out most of what the Bible teaches, because most of the Bible’s teaching is in our favor! If God does not want the Church to endure the Tribulation, then that is his prerogative. We shouldn’t seek to suffer beyond what he has called us to. However, because this teaching is uncertain, we should be content to suffer in the tribulation, if it turns out this way.

Conversely, self-interest does not validate a teaching either. In-fact, self-interest should never be allowed to influence our understanding of scripture. Consider this:

Just as it is written, “FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. Romans 8:36-37

If we look at this through the lens of self-interest we might say that this is only applicable to the Jews. And that’s what pretribulationists do when they look at the Olivet discourse and most of Revelation.

Rochford also claims, “most of the Bible’s teaching is in our favor.” I disagree. Most of the Bible documents mankind’s failure to love and obey God and is full of judgments against His people, beginning with Adam. And if we think this does not apply to us today, we are deceived. Look what Paul says in the New Testament:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.” Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 1 Corinthians 10:1-12

Have the ends of the ages come upon us? Possibly, if so, how much more significant are these warnings to us should we be required to endure in faith through the tribulation when it comes?

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
CLAIM #5: This teaching about a pre-tribulation rapture was invented by John Darby in 1830. No one even considered this before his time.

This claim I agree with despite the two citations given that are pre-John Darby.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
First, historically, this is not the case. Scholar Paul Benware writes,

As early as 1687, Peter Jurieu, in his book Approaching Deliverance of the Church (1687), taught that Christ would come in the air to rapture the saints and return to heaven before the battle of Armageddon. He spoke of a secret rapture prior to His coming in glory and judgment at Armageddon… More than a thousand years before Darby the writings of one known as ‘Pseudo-Ephraem’ (4th-7th century AD) spoke of the saints being removed from the earth and taken to be with the Lord prior to the judgments of the tribulation. He taught that there were two comings and that the church was removed before the tribulation.

What Benware fails to mention is the context under which Jurieu wrote his book. For one thing, Jurieu was a date setter, claiming that the Antichrist was the Pope and that God would overthrow him and establish His kingdom in 1689. This puts him in the category of a false prophets like Charles Taze Russell of the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witness Founder) and the more recent Harold Camping. It is also worth noting that Jurieu believed that the tribulation had already started. So he was not pretrib. He would have been closer to midtrib/prewrath which believe that the Church will see the Antichrist. Here is a quote from Jurieu that demonstrated that he was not pretribulational nor a believer in the idea of imminence right in the title page of his book.

^{Approaching Deliverance of the Church by Peter Jurieu}
“Proving, that the Papacy is the Antichristian Kingdom; and that the Kingdom is not far from its ruin. That the present persecution may end in Three years and half, after which the Destruction of Antichrist shall begin; which shall be Finisht in the beginning of the next Age: and then the Kingdom of Christ shall come upon Earth.”

Not what I would call an example of pretribulationism. Benware mischaracterizes Jurieu’s book. As for Psuedo Ephraem, using it as an example of pretribulational beliefs is extremely problematic for numerous reasons. Here is the quote in question used by pretrib teachers to attempt to prove that a pretrib rapture / two-stage coming of the Lord was widespread in the early Church.

^{Psuedo Epraem Latin version to English}
“For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”

Sounds pretty convincing on its face until you look a little deeper. This quote was first translated from Latin to English in 1995 by a a scholar with a pretrib bias. There are only 2 manuscripts of this document. One in Latin and the other in Syriac. The two versions have major differences. For example: the corresponding Syriac version translates:

^{Psuedo Epraem Syriac version to English}
“Pronouncing the good fortune of the deceased Who had avoided the calamity: ‘Blessed are you for you were borne away (to the grave) And hence you escaped from the afflictions!”

The Syriac version identifies the escape from suffering occurring in the solace of death. And this is a recurring theme throughout these documents. Also, these two documents are dated from the 6th to 7th centuries with no other copies. Therefore it is extremely doubtful that Ephream actually authored them or that this two-stage coming, pretrib rapture was believed by the early Church or anyone else ever in history prior to the 1830’s. Now moving on to Hermeneutics.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Second, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was largely lost from the time of the early church fathers until the Reformation (4th to the 17th century). As believers were using the allegorical method, pre-tribulationism was impossible to discern (see “Hermeneutics”). However, once the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was recovered, it is no wonder that these truths emerged from the text. Thomas Ice writes, “It was impossible for a doctrine (the pretribulation rapture) to spring up in an environment lacking a necessary ingredient from which to build (premillennialism).”

Let’s say for a moment that the Church abandoned the grammatical-historical hermeneutic beginning in the 4th century. Ok, that would imply that the Church before the fourth century was using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Then one would expect to find in their writings, examples of two future comings of the Lord. But the fact is there aren’t. From the writings of the Ante-Nicaean Fathers one could nearly reconstruct the entire New Testament from their expositions and quotes. So if a pretrib rapture is and always has been the Blessed Hope, why is it never discussed? Because using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic they never came up with the idea. This is not a doctrine recovered, it is a doctrine invented. Onto the genetic fallacy argument.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Third, this commits the genetic fallacy. The origin of a belief does not invalidate that belief. Imagine if someone argued, “You only learned of your post-tribulational beliefs, because you went to seminary for four years.” This might be true, but the origin of a belief does not invalidate its truthfulness.

So this is good that Rochford is finally acknowledging logical fallacies and by bringing this particular one up, he is essentially admitting the weakness of his own argument that pretribulationism as a belief can be established as a doctrine believed by early Christians. So if this doctrine did not appear until the 1830’s and since it is not explicitly taught in scripture and since it cannot be established as a belief of the early Christians it begs the question: why should anyone believe it? Now to the final point.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Fourth, time does not determine truth. Many heresies are old. Some orthodox teachings are new. Truth should not be determined by its age. Moreover, we might point out that this sword cuts both ways. Many people who hold this objection also hold to amillennialism or post-millennialism, which wasn’t articulated for hundreds of years after Christ. Our understanding of eschatology is more important today than it was several hundred years ago, because we are currently closer to the end than before. Perhaps, God—in his providence—waited for the church to approach the end before we were able to fully articulate this view.

To me, this is the most disturbing assertion in the entire article. Why? Because it posits progressive revelation. This is the error of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They claim to have “New Light.” Bringing up Amillennialism and Postmillennialism is comparing apples to oranges. To begin with, James Rochford concedes in the beginning of his article that, “the timing of the rapture is an in-house discussion within the premillennial view.” So why bring up these other eschatological systems? Simply to muddy the waters. At least Amillennialism and Postmillennialism aren’t as new as pretribulationism but they are also demonstrably false and do not follow the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. The early Church was demonstrably Premillennial. In his final point he admits that this view was not fully articulated. If that is the case, how could it have been the Blessed Hope of the early Church? It could not have been. The Blessed Hope is and always has been the hope of seeing Jesus when He returns, not twice but once.

^{A Pretribulational Rapture by James M. Rochford}
Passages that relate to the rapture
John 14:1-3
John 21:18
1 Corinthians 15:52
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Revelation 3:10

One last thing. Of the five references provided by James Rochford, only three relate to the rapture. Those being, 1 Corinthians 15:52, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. In John 14 Jesus says that he is leaving, preparing a place for His disciples, and is coming again. There is no direct reference to the rapture in His statement. It is still true regardless of the timing of the rapture. John 21:18 Jesus is telling Peter how he will give his life and be sacrificed as a martyr. The other three are rapture passages but are not offered in a pretribulational context. In-fact, one of them, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 puts the rapture after the tribulation.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

This coming and our gathering occur well within the tribulation with the signs of the revelation of Antichrist and great apostasy preceding it.