Pre-wrath rapture--Part 1

EVALUATING THE PRE-WRATH RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH--PART 1
By Paul Karleen

What? Another view of the rapture? How many more can there be? With pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, partial-trib, and now the newest contender "pre-wrath" it seems that there are almost as many positions as there are recipes for meatloaf. Which one is correct?

At least there's one good thing we know about this situation: they can't all be right! If you haven't heard of the pre-wrath rapture, you probably will soon. Its main vehicle is The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church by Marvin Rosenthal, former General Director of Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry. It is also featured prominently in Zion's Fire, the magazine promoting Rosenthal's new mission organization, Zion's Hope. Rosenthal's thesis is this:

The rapture of the Church of Jesus Christ will occur, not at the beginning of the seventieth week of Daniel, but sometime after its midpoint, just prior to the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord will be a time of wrath from God upon the inhabitants of the earth. [Thus, this is basically a mid-tribulation position. (Comment by this web maker)] Church-age believers will go through the first half of the seventieth week "three and one-half years" and more, but will be spared the time of wrath. The book is forcefully written and graphically attractive, with many two-color diagrams. Here are some of Rosenthal's claims:

-The rapture occurs on the very same day on which the Day of the Lord begins.
-The restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2 is Michael the Archangel (cf. Daniel12:1).
-The coming of Christ "begins before the end of the seventieth week and is consummated after the end of the seventieth week."
-Disagreement over existing rapture views suggests that all are fatally flawed.
-The pre-tribulation rapture holds out the false hope of an imminent rapture.
-"Within two years many men will be teaching the pre-wrath Rapture. Within five years it will be a recognized position. And, if God pleases, within fifteen years it will become a major position of the believing church, if God gives that many years."
Following are four guidelines to help in evaluating this or any view that claims to fit the Bible:
-Correspondence to biblical facts
-Accuracy concerning the biblical languages
-Attention to the context of words, phrases and verses
-Sound logic, that is, reasoning that conforms to the canons of contemporary formal and informal logic.

THE METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION

Joining many bad arguments never makes a good argument, but put together enough weak claims and anyone can be fooled. Rosenthal presents his position by adding one conclusion to another in a chain-like effect, writing in such a way that, if the reader accepts each part, he is likely to conclude that the pre-wrath position is valid. But many partial truths do not make a whole truth. The total of anything can be no better than the quality of each of its components.

There are many complex arguments in The Pre-Wrath Rapture. It would take a very long book to analyze each one in detail. In this article I will analyze a few of the key issues. Let's look at some of the links in the Pre-Wrath Rapture chain. Numbers in parentheses are references to pages in the book.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FACTS

WHEN DOES THE WRATH OF GOD BEGIN?

According to the pre-wrath view, God's wrath on the earth doesn't start until the Day of the Lord, after the six seals of Revelation 6, and after cosmic disturbances. The Church is raptured just before the beginning of wrath; since, according to 1 Thessalonians 1:10, believers of this age are not appointed to wrath. In addition, the "tribulation" is only the first part of the second half of the seventieth week and contains no wrath. It is very important to the pre-wrath position that wrath not begin until after the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, after the tribulation, after the first six seals, after the cosmic disturbances and after the rapture.

DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH THAT THERE IS NO WRATH DURING THE "TRIBULATION" OR BEFORE THE DAY OF THE LORD?

Rosenthal looks (I believe correctly) to the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 24 for events of the seventieth week of Daniel. We know that he views Matthew 24 and Luke 21 as parallel in their description of these events (152). Rosenthal pointedly says: "Wrath is restricted to the latter part of the seventieth week, specifically the Day of the Lord period" (172). But what does Luke say? In 21:23 he records Jesus' words as follows: "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that nurse children, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people."

HERE IS WHAT WE OBSERVE

1. If we were to look at a harmony of the Gospels, we would see that Luke 21:23 is parallel to Matthew 24:19-22. They describe the same time period. Matthew refers to this time as one that has "great tribulation" (v. 21). While there are some who take Luke 21:20-24 to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., the language of Luke and Matthew is so strikingly similar here that both must be referring to the same period, the seventieth week. This is especially so because of Luke 21:22, where Jesus says that He is speaking of the fulfillment of all things, undoubtedly a reference to the Old Testament predictions of the end times. In addition, for our evaluative purposes here, we should note that Rosenthal places Luke 21:23-25 in the seventieth week (152).
2. It is significant that Luke 21:23a & b are connected with the word for (the Greek word ), which provides an explanation. Verse 23b gives an explanation of the events of 23a and must take place at the same time, not sometime later. The "woe" exists because of the wrath. Thus we find that Luke teaches that there will be wrath during the time that Matthew describes as having "great tribulation."
3. Rosenthal says that the Day of the Lord, in his view the only time of wrath, will be a period for chastening and purifying for Israel (175). Note that Luke 21:23 has "wrath upon this people" --wrath coming on Jews [To this web writer this is conclusive.]. Luke uses the same word as is used in Revelation and normally translated "wrath", and the word that Rosenthal takes as describing the wrath of God. Luke puts it (using the same word) before the cosmic events of the sixth seal. So Luke teaches that "in those days" (which Rosenthal takes to be the "tribulation" of Matthew 24:19 [205] there will be wrath on Israel.
4. Rosenthal says that the Olivet discourse is sequential in progression (60). He also asserts by his chart (152) that Luke 21:25 is parallel to the sixth seal, and therefore before any wrath. But Luke 21 has wrath before this. So Luke says there will be wrath during the period; Rosenthal says there will not be wrath. It might be helpful to lay the main elements out sequentially, comparing Luke and Rosenthal's view of Matthew 24. Pre-wrath view of Matthew 24[:] Luke 21 is tribulation[;] Matthew 24 is tribulation (assumes the Olivet discourse is chronological)[;] v.23a woe on mothers[,] v. 19 woe on mothers[;] v. 23b wrath on Israel[;] v. 21 tribulation[;] v. 25 cosmic disturbances[;] v. 25 cosmic disturbances, opening of the sixth seal as prelude to the Day of the Lord, then the rapture and the beginning of wrath on Israel. Wrath does not begin until here. The text of Luke is clear. There is wrath during the period where Rosenthal places the "tribulation," during the period where he places the six seals, before the seventh seal, before his cosmic disturbances, before where he places the rapture, and before his Day of the Lord starts--all places where he says there cannot be wrath.
The timing of wrath is the cornerstone of the pre-wrath position. In fact, Rosenthal tells us his most important purpose for writing: "The objective of this volume is to demonstrate that the Day of the Lord is the time of divine wrath" (35). Luke's Olivet account thus undermines the crucial element in Rosenthal's argument. He cannot restrict wrath to the Day of the Lord and be true to the Bible.

PROBLEMS WITH CONTEXTS

ARE THERE BLESSINGS DURING THE DAY OF THE LORD?

Contexts are always very significant for biblical understanding. If we don't pay attention to the surroundings of biblical passages, we can easily get biblical information wrong. It turns out that this is exactly what Rosenthal does. He asserts that the Day of the Lord is exclusively a time of the outpouring of God's wrath, not of God's favor on Israel: "There is no blessing associated with the Day of the Lord in the texts that describe it" (128). Noting that some Bible teachers say that the Day of the Lord will include the millennium, Rosenthal indicates that while the ending point of his Day of the Lord is not crucial to his argument, he does want to show that the Day of the Lord contains no blessing and does not include the millennium.

Does the Bible really teach this? Joel 2:30-3:2 comes right in the middle of a passage that Rosenthal cites as describing the Day of the Lord (119). In the pre-wrath position, the cosmic signs come just before the Day of the Lord. Joel describes that in 2:30-31. The next thing Joel has is blessing! In addition, 3:1 is explicit that blessing comes during the same time period. There is no justification for relegating this to another time. The blessing is part of the same Day of the Lord. It may come after judgment, but it is within the Day.
Here is an overview of the passage:
2:30,31 cosmic signs
2:32 salvation
3:1 restoration of Judah and Jerusalem's fortunes "in that time"
3:2 judgment on the nations

There is no escaping the meaning of Joel here. By looking at whole contexts, we see that blessing comes during the same time period as the cosmic signs and judgment on the nations. This is an impossible sequence for the pre-wrath position! Other passages that demonstrate the same thing are Zephaniah 3:8-13a, Isaiah 34 and 35, Haggai 2 and Zechariah 12-14 (perhaps the most telling).

PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC

2 PETER 3 AND THE DAY OF THE LORD

Although early in the book Rosenthal asserts that he will not attempt to erect any straw men and then argue against them, he does just that in his discussion of 2 Peter 3, misstating the position of the pre-tribulationists. Most pre-millennialists interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13 as describing events before the millennium (the coming "as a thief") and after it (reshaping of the heavens and earth). Their position is that the Day of the Lord extends from the rapture through the creation of the new heaven and new earth and has components of judgment as well as blessing. But recall that one of the main supports for Rosenthal's view that the Day of the Lord cannot cover the period of the millennium is that it cannot contain blessing, which he acknowledges is part of the millennium. After stating the pre-tribulational view, Rosenthal brings in his assumption that the Day cannot extend through the millennium and says that in order to account for the two components (judgment and blessing) the pretribulationist must then be forced to espouse the view (which Rosenthal himself has created) that there are two "Day" eras. Then Rosenthal states that the phrase "Where is the promise of his coming?" (3:4) makes no sense if applied to a "Day" before the millennium and a separate "Day" afterward. This "two Day" view is not the position of the pretribulationist. Rosenthal creates that position, and then argues against it. When he believes he has shown that it is false, he concludes that he has shown that his own view is "right" that 2 Peter 3 must refer to the one Day of the Lord that he thinks occurs during the seventieth week of Daniel. Thus Rosenthal creates a straw man, attempts to disprove it, and then asserts that his position is vindicated. This is a very evident logical fallacy.

PROBLEMS WITH FACTS AND CONTEXTS

THE FIRST FIVE SEALS OF REVELATION 6

In Revelation 5 the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ in metaphor, seizes the scroll from the One who sits on the throne (God the Father) and in Revelation 6 begins to open the seals contained in the scroll. The face-value interpretation of the seals is that they contain or are events that transpire on earth, or events in the spiritual realm that touch on events on the earth. However, not only does Rosenthal insist that the seals are not under Christ's control, since that would make Him responsible for events associated with the Antichrist, he also believes that the seals are not events and do not contain events. Instead, he says, the seals represent God's protective security over believers during this time: God is protecting them until the rapture. He argues that since seal in Ephesians 1:13 represents the security of the believer as brought about by the Holy Spirit, so, too, in Revelation 6 the seals portray God's protection of the believer from any harm that God does not want to touch them. Throughout the book, Rosenthal appeals for the use of contextual, grammatical, historical, and literal interpretation. Here is the clearest example of his violating his avowed standards. It is exegetically indefensible to automatically transfer the meaning of a word in one text to a usage in another text without examining the context. His interpretation runs totally counter to the text of Revelation 5 and 6. The seal of Ephesians 1:13 is the Holy Spirit Himself and is explicitly described as a provision for keeping the believer secure in Christ. In Revelation 6, the seals are multiple, vary in their content, and are never associated with the work of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, the seals themselves are "opened." As each seal is opened, something happens. Thus the seals contain or are events. Jesus opens them, thus demonstrating His control of the events. Revelation 6 is another key passage for the pre-wrath view, since it is so involved with deciding on the starting point of the Day of the Lord (see 176). Rosenthal must keep the seals from coming directly from the hand of God and from containing any judgment from Him. His interpretation allows him to keep the seals from being of the same character as the trumpets and bowls, namely, judgments from God. But under a face-value interpretation of the seals, they are actually judgments unrolled as the scroll is opened. Rosenthal's theological misunderstanding and contextual and factual errors show up clearly here. [Note: as explained here, though not explicitly stated, the error of Rosenthal is the old error of assuming a same meaning for a term. As explained Rosenthal does not consider the context--a common error of every heresy.]

MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE FACTS

NOAH AND THE FLOOD, AND THE COMING OF CHRIST

Rosenthal attempts to counter any suggestion that the Day of the Lord begins some time after the rapture. Some dispensationalists have posited this in order to account for the appearance of Elijah (Malachi 4:5) and the appearance of the Antichrist (159). Rosenthal maintains that the rapture, the start of the wrath of God and the beginning of the Day of the Lord all come at the same time--after the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel and after the "tribulation" period. One of the supports he uses for this is Jesus' mentioning of Noah in Matthew 24:37-39. Rosenthal states, "The Lord teaches that on the very day that Noah entered the ark, God's judgment fell." Please look at the text of Genesis 7:1-10 and notice when Noah entered the ark and when the floods came. The two events were seven days apart. Rosenthal claims they occur on the same day! Look carefully also at Matthew 24:38-39: Jesus says that people kept on eating and drinking until the day Noah entered the ark. It does not say that the flood came the day Noah entered. Premillennialists hold that the Bible describes a coming of Christ to receive His Church and a coming in glory after that. The time interval between these has been debated. However, Rosenthal does something unusual with these two events: he collapses them, asserting that Christ 1) takes His Church from the earth before the Day of the Lord, 2) remains on the scene and 3) gloriously judges the nations and establishes His Kingdom. In addition to failing to deal with the differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 (a coming for believers to meet them in the clouds) and passages such as Zechariah 14 (a coming to the earth on the Mount of Olives in power and glory) the author is unable to portray what Jesus is doing while He is "present." Here is what he says, "This coming commences before the end of the seventieth week, and is consummated after the end of the seventieth week (Revelation 19:11)" (110). He gives no Scripture for this. Where is Jesus and what is He doing? The silence on this is deafening!

PROBLEMS WITH LANGUAGE

MICHAEL AS THE RESTRAINER

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul indicates that the Day of the Lord cannot begin until a "restrainer" is first removed. This is a crucial point for Rosenthal, since under his system he must account for the removal of the estrainer, but, wanting to keep the Church present throughout the period, just also have the Holy Spirit present. Thus his system automatically rules out the Holy Spirit as the restrainer (many interpreters hold that He is the restrainer), and Michael (Daniel 12:1) gets the job of abandoning Israel: "The Bible is explicit that the archangel Michael is the personage who will step aside" (257). "Michael, Israel's great prince, shall stand up . . . from helping Israel during the time of the Great Tribulation (v. 1a)" (267). Aside from the fact that no reason is given in Scripture for such an act (i. e., why would protection stop), there are serious linguistic problems with this. Rosenthal asserts that the Hebrew verb amad can mean "stand still" (258). In some of its occurrences in the Old Testament it does. But the author goes further and says that "stand still" means "stand aside," i. e., act passively and allow something to happen. Here are the facts.
1. According to Brown, Driver and Brigg's Lexicon, the standard scholarly Hebrew lexicon, amad never has the meaning "stand aside."
2. "Stand still" and stand aside" are not at all the same thing. Allow me to give an example. If I am taking a picture of my children and one wiggles, I might say, "Stand still." But if I say, "stand aside," my child would move out of the picture. These are two different verbs and two different actions!
3. Rosenthal cites one Hebrew scholar who gives the meaning of amad as "stand still." Citing one commentator for the meaning of a word is hardly convincing. What do the others say? What are the possible meanings for the word? Furthermore, the author changes the commentator's conclusion from "stand still" to "stand aside" or "be inactive" (258).
4. According to my count, the verb amad occurs thirty times in Daniel. In none of its occurrences can it mean "stand still passively to allow something to happen." In fact, in the latter chapters when a new personage is introduced to the narrative, the verb is often used as equivalent to our "come on the scene."
5. The face-value interpretation of Daniel 12:1 makes a connection between the standing of Michael in 1a and the deliverance of Daniel's people in 1c. Michael stands up to save Israel. His standing and the deliverance both occur "at that time." The emphasis of the verse is on protection, not abandonment. While there are many more reasons for rejecting Rosenthal's interpretation of Daniel 12:1 and the identity of the restrainer, these points show that he demonstrates serious errors in working with biblical language.

CONCLUSION

Rosenthal discusses many other points connected with the seventieth week of Daniel. They include the meaning of Revelation 3:10; the nature of imminence; the presence of the Church during the seventieth week of Daniel; the extended periods of time in Daniel 12 (rarely dealt with); the timing of the coming of Elijah and the revealing of the man of sin before the Day of the Lord.

There can be no question that Rosenthal has wrestled with significant issues in biblical interpretation. But the pre-wrath rapture is not justified in its claim to be the true explanation of the unfolding of the seventieth week of Daniel and of associated events,

Click on the words to which you wish to return: Home Page or Miscellaneous Page