I have taken the response for this from a website called Evidence Unseen. The author, James Rochford, does not exhaustively address the issues, but he gives some of the most important arguments for pre-tribulation rapture, which is also what I presently believe the Scriptures teach.
(1 Thess. 4:16-17) Does this describe a pre-tribulation rapture or a post-tribulation rapture of the church?
Before we respond to this view, 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. However, from the evidence, it seems that the Bible teaches a pre-tribulation rapture.
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.
RESPONSE: Consider a Jewish rabbi living two hundred years before Christ. If you had told him that there would betwo comings of the Messiah, he would have laughed in your face! And yet, in hindsight, the OT does undoubtedly predict a suffering servant (Is. 53; Zech. 12) and a conquering king (Dan. 7:13-14; Is. 9:6-7). Similarly, there are multiple clues which indicate that the rapture and the second coming are two separate events.
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). Later, in Revelation 13:9, we read, “Ifanyone has an ear, let him hear.” This is a conspicuous difference between the two. One is directed to the church; the other is directed to anyone left on earth.
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. In the same way, 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.
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” (Is. 65:20). Clearly, Isaiah believed that people would die in the millennial kingdom. However, believers will all get “immortal” and “imperishable” bodies at the coming of Christ (1 Cor. 15:51-53). Non-believers, on the other hand, will be judged and defeated by Christ at this time and none will escape (1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 2:12). If believers are immortal and non-believers are killed, who can die in the millennial kingdom?
Fourth, the rapture is imminent. 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. The early church lived in the expectancy that Jesus could return at any moment. However, Jesus taught that his second coming would be preceded by various specific signs (Mt. 24:4-34).
Fifth, there are other dissimilarities between the rapture and second coming. For instance, 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 the 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 amessage of comfort (1 Thess. 4:18; I Cor. 1:8; I 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 (Is. 13:6,9 Is. 34:8; Ezek. 30:3; Amos 5:18; Zeph. 1:7-13; I 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 (Is. 26:19; Ezek. 37; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:25-26; Ps. 22:29) were taught in the OT repeatedly, so Paul couldn’t be describing either of these.
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 (Greeksōtēria) 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 saved from the perils of wealth (Lk. 19:9), “this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40), rescue from Egypt (Acts 7:25), or physical protection (Acts 27:34). The context is not the wrath of hell; it is the wrath of thetribulation. The tribulation period is spoken of as the “wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16; see also Rev. 15:1; 3:10).
CLAIM #2: Post-tribulationists argue that these inconsistencies 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.
RESPONSE: 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.
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.
RESPONSE: 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, because the book of Revelation wasn’t 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).
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 remains on Earth.
CLAIM #4: Post-tribulationists argue that the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture is just wishful thinking. It reflects the soft, comfortable mentality of the 21st century Christians in the West, who desire to avoid suffering and persecution.
RESPONSE: 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!” 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.
CLAIM #5: This teaching about a pre-tribulation rapture was invented by John Darby in 1830. No one even considered this before his time.
RESPONSE: There are multiple problems with this claim.
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.[1]
Furthermore, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was largely lost from the time of the early church fathers until the Reformation (4th to the 17th century). Without a premillennial view, pre-tribulationism was impossible to discern. The OT was largely allegorized. 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).”[2]
Second, 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 it.
Third, 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 in the age of Augustine. 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.
[1] Benware, Paul N. Understanding End times Prophecy: a Comprehensive Approach. Chicago: Moody, 2006. 248.
[2] Thomas Ice “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald”Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June) 1990. 167.