A Great Multitude of Rapture Musings

A great multitude of rapture musings: the pretrib view has been accused of circular reasoning and arguments appealing to eisegesis. What about pretrib’s critics?

At around 2006, I found my way into Jack Kinsella’s Omega Letter forum. Jack was pretrib, as most of the members were. I was somewhat skeptical – posttrib by default – and didn’t engage much at the time. Whenever Jack wrote about the rapture, dissenters often corrected him. He was occasionally called a false teacher because he taught pretrib.

Someone, who “studied logic at a Christian university,” once accused Jack of circular reasoning, eisegesis, and appealing to tradition. It was an endearing lecture. We’re always grateful when folk kindly point out our “eisegesis”. This person held to the prewrath view (PW). Later encounters with proponents (often former pretribbers) followed that pattern.

Regarding conversion stories: It isn’t uncommon for people to convert away from a view. Some move from Premil to Amil. Others cross the Tiber to Rome. I’m more interested in the logic behind these conversions. How does it stack?

My inquiry of the PW phenomenon paralleled Eric Douma and Bob DeWaay’s. Responding to a challenge, they conducted a study of the timing of the rapture by addressing PW and pretrib sources. Their conclusion was that the pretrib position was actually compelling.

Perhaps one of the appealing aspects of prewrath rapturism is what I sometimes refer to as its Catechism, Framework, or Structure. Proponents will recite a series of passages which fit into a seemingly cohesive schema.

One PW contention is that the Great Multitude is the raptured church. I wrote a brief article about the nature of this idea HERE. It isn’t possible to address all objections. But it has been my experience that the idea appeals more to the adopted structure than Revelation 7.

The PW structure has go-to texts which are meant to be co-supportive. For example, when challenging a proponent’s interpretation of Mat 24: 22 (integral to PW), instead of dealing with the merit of the opposing interpretation, one may be directed to Matt 24:31 (alleged rapture) and the “raptured Great Multitude” (Rev 7).

Yet Matt 24:22 more likely refers to those days not exceeding the designated three-and-a-half years, thus sparing life. This fits the given reason for the action, and satisfies passages (Revelation included) which state that the Great Tribulation is this length. If the length of the GT isn’t shortened, other components of the PW framework collapse.

One PW appeal for the GT being cut short can be seen in Alan Kurschner’s Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord (p 60). Regardless how hard proponents object, the gathering of the elect is stated to occur after the tribulation. This event therefore cannot cut the GT short.

How does that square with the GM arriving from within the GT? One response is – because they were in the GT at one point. Is that valid? PW adherents hold to the idea that Rev 7:14 is a completed action (via Matt 24:31) because they’re compelled to do so by the outflow of their assumed framework. But Matt 24:31 might just as well be the gathering of Israel.

How does one simply know that John is looking at a completed group? How effective is an appeal to Rev 14 (harvest) when other interpretations exist? BTW, resurrections are only mentioned in Revelation 20. Any suggestion that the Rapture Resurrection is located in chapter 7 is driven by assumption, not a demand of the texts.

I would add here that the ESV uses the phrase “coming out of” (still happening) in regard to the Great Multitude. So these translators see it a continuing action. Moreover, since the rapture includes resurrected saints, could they also be said to have come out of the Great tribulation from a PW perspective? Remember that the “rapture-gathering” occurs “after the tribulation.” I see too many issues with the prewrath contention.

Robert Van Kampen identified the 5th seal martyrs as the resurrected saints in Rev 20:4, but not included among the GM. The reasoning is that if beheaded saints are resurrected after the rapture, the tribulation hasn’t been cut short – whereas the PW framework demands it must be. A different way of getting over the issue is to assert that Rev 20:4 is a recap of Rev 7:14. This isn’t a “natural reading”; it imposes one’s eschatology onto the text.

After I wrote The GM article, I looked at Renald Showers’ response to the PW view of the GM in The Pre-Wrath Rapture View. Showers addressed Van Kampen’s The Sign. RVK insisted that the Greek in Rev 7:14 was understood as a completed event by “reputable translators” (e.g., Alford). He asserted that 20th century translators allowed their pretrib bias to render the “present tense participle” as “coming.” He claimed that Dr Robert L Thomas (unpublished Exegetical Digest on Revelation) also supported a completed action.

However, Showers noted that non-pretribbers such as A. T. Robertson and R. H. Charles held to a continuous action – the martyrs are still arriving. Joachim Jeremias and Heinrich Schlier considered the GM to be martyrs. Moreover, in Thomas’ published commentary on Revelation he specifically addresses Rosenthal’s position and disagrees with it. It’s possible RVK confused Thomas’ engagement with other positions as being Thomas’ own view. Buist Fanning (continuous action position) engages other views in the same way in his Revelation commentary.

Incidentally, while RVK influenced many, he wasn’t always a careful researcher. In The Rapture Question Answered he introduced second-hand information of a private conversation to assert that Donald G. Barnhouse hadn’t written a commentary on Revelation because he had “questions he couldn’t resolve” re pretrib. Yet Barnhouse’s Revelation Commentary (published in 1971) is firmly pretribulational. And TRQA was published much later in 1997!

In Chapter 8 That’s Greek to Me, RVK argues that episunago is a rapture term. To this day proponents appeal to its use in Matt 24:31 and 2 Thess 2:1 (“context”). However the Lord also used it for Israel’s gathering in Matt 23:37 (context?). Episunago just means gathering, regardless of whatever context people think they see.

RVK and Rosenthal’s prophecy charts depicting “man’s wrath” and “Satan’s wrath” indicate a lack of understanding of God’s sovereign use of nations and Satan as instruments of wrath. Renald Showers was right regarding this criticism of the system. Our understanding of how God implements His wrath has consequences concerning rapture timing, if our assumption that He keeps the church out of His wrath is correct.

Finally, my differences with the prewrath view don’t make my own position correct. However, PW proponents operate on the hypothesis that disproving pretrib cements their position. PW must defend itself on its own merit. I’m not satisfied that it does this well. Moreover, the polemical charge that pretribbers consistently rely on circular reasoning and eisegesis are unwarranted and somewhat ironic.

I quite like the idea that Christ can come at any moment. It should inspire us to be ever vigilant.

Maranatha!