The Rapture Question Answered – Plain and Simple by Robert Van Kampen – A Book Review. The book was first published in 1997 by Fleming H. Revell – A Division of Baker Book House (Paperback 214 pages).
Prior to this offering, Van Kampen wrote a thicker eschatological volume called The Sign. The Rapture Question Answered (TRQA) was a follow-up prompted by popular demand. The rapture system presented by Van Kampen is the Pre-Wrath view, formulated in the late twentieth century.
Along with The Sign, and Marv Rosenthal’s The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, The Rapture Question Answered is still strongly promoted by prewrath supporters.
Robert Van Kampen was a confident man. I found his style self-assured but divisive. He saw himself as a “Charger” possessed of “analytical” and “logical” skills. He recounts how he challenged Moody Bible professors and had them “ducking behind their newspapers” (p 35). He says they knew what he wanted and that it wasn’t what they wanted, which was answers. Van Kampen liked debating. He wrote that, having done his homework, it was a “particular delight” to confront his “accusers” by pointing to chapter and verse and demonstrating that the issue is not with him (p 32).
That said the book and his view has its share of problems. Despite his penchant for “comparing Scripture with Scripture” Van Kampen doesn’t interact with all the texts, or opposing arguments. Following is a small sampling of issues with Van Kampen’s book.
On page 107 he encourages readers to seek out pretrib friends to ask them why they cannot set dates. They invariably appeal to Matt 24:36 which Van Kampen believes is Jesus’ coming after the tribulation.
Yet verse 36 suggests a change of subject where Jesus informs His disciples that “that day” is like the days of Noah and arrives as people are marrying and giving in marriage. Compare that to Paul’s 1 Thess 5:2-3. How can “that day” arrive during a period of normalcy after the seal judgments and the worst period in history (Matt 24:21-22)? Might v36 be referring to something else? See Robert L Thomas’ Imminence essay HERE
Van Kampen taught multiple future comings in The Sign. See also Charles Cooper’s article. Given this; his argument that the rapture and second coming form a so-called Single Parousia event (p 101) is untenable and inconsistent.
Another example is his attempt to employ the Greek episunago in Matt 24:31 as a rapture proof. He claims episunago means a lifting up and taking away, as in the rapture (pp 184-185). The same word was used by Jesus for Israel’s gathering in Matt 23:37. Does that mean Israel is raptured? Ironically, he insists v31 is the rapture yet teaches a separate later coming of Christ to gather Israel (The Sign).
As an aside, in The Sign he claimed that Deut 30:1-5 pertains to unbelieving Israel’s gathering before the 70th week commences. Yet these verses indicate that Israel’s gathering from captivity from all the nations and from the farthest parts under heaven (vv 3, 4) is conditional to their return to God (v 2). Note also Hos 5:15 and Matt 23:39, and especially compare Matt 24:29-30 with Zech 12:10. This is compelling evidence that Matt 24:31 is Israel’s (the elect nation) re-gathering once they’ve turned to the Lord.
Because his position cannot sustain God’s wrath occurring prior to or during a “shortened” Great Tribulation, Van Kampen asserts the 4th seal only pertains to Jews and Christians (TRQA pp 144-149), contra a plain understanding of the verse.
He neglects to engage Ezekiel 5 where these same judgments are associated with God’s anger, fury and wrath. In Ezek 7:3-19 we again find references to God’s anger, fury and wrath associated with famine, sword and pestilence (v15) and in connection to the Day of the Lord’s wrath (v 19).
His arguments that pretribulationism fails the great commission seem strained in light of the fact that Rosenthal simply passes the baton from the church to the 144,000. Van Kampen claims the 144,000 will become the firstfruits of unsaved Israel. They’re not saved until the rapture occurs – which is why they won’t be raptured with the church. Convenient timing!
Walvoord and Mayhue are cited as making damaging admissions about pretribulationism. Walvoord admitted that neither posttribulationism nor pretribulationism is explicit in Scripture. Yet Ladd admitted the same of posttribulationism. Van Kampen erroneously cites Mayhue (p 46) as saying that pretribulationism is “logically invalid or at least unconvincing” in his dissertation. Mayhue actually wrote:
Problems remain to be solved by pretribulationists. Yet at this state of the art, pretribulationism most consistently fits the Biblical data and is championed by this writer as the view which best explains the coming of our Lord for His own.
All views have areas of difficulty because the timing of the rapture isn’t explicit. In fact Mayhue makes a strong case for pretribulationism in his commentary on Thessalonians as well as a range of resources available at The Master’s Seminary.
Van Kampen also cites an anecdotal account (p 196) by an anonymous man who allegedly told Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960) that he was uncomfortable accepting a position as a co-pastor because he doubted pretribulationism. Barnhouse supposedly admitted to questions he couldn’t resolve, and stated that he’d never written a commentary on Revelation
In fact Barnhouse wrote a commentary on Revelation from a pretrib position long before TRQA was published. I have it and can confirm that he strongly affirmed pretribulationism there. Van Kampen should have been more careful with his claims.
On page 193 he poisons the well by observing that pretribulationism flourished at the same time as cults such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The mention of Edward Irving as a possible source for Darby exposes Van Kampen’s careless research. In fact the Irvingites were historicists. And they believed the world was experiencing the last three-and-a-half years before Christ’s return.
Why does he write that Irving was accused of heresy for his low view of Christ in the same sentence that he mentions Darby? Did he not realize that Darby was so intolerant of unorthodox teachings that he had issues with Benjamin Wills Newton which had nothing to do with rapture timing debates?
Many TRQA readers aren’t aware that Van Kampen taught four future comings of Christ in his previous book – often, even when they claim to have read it. Nor are some aware that the fifth seal martyrs are “left behind” at the rapture to be resurrected at Rev 20:4. His assumptions required it – if the great tribulation was cut short, how could you have beheaded martyrs after the rapture? Not so plain and simple after all.
Since then, modern prewrath thinkers have aligned themselves to the posttrib view that Rev 20:4 is really a recapitulation of the earlier rapture event. This destroys the “face-value” approach and superimposes their assumptions onto the text. Another recent modification is the declaration that Rev 3:10 is a prewrath rapture passage.
The prewrath view needs a shortened great tribulation (less than three-and-a-half years). Yet everywhere in Scripture (even in Revelation) it is presented as three-and-a-half years. Its viability hinges on a unique interpretation of Matt 24:22. Yet all this passage is saying is that, if those days were not terminated, no one would be saved alive! The context fits better with the idea that people need to remain alive to enter the millennium, not alive to be raptured. At the rapture dead saints are resurrected anyway. Van Kampen doesn’t address the problem in any of his books. The position is assumed correct.
While it’s an easy read, TRQA is poorly argued. And it suffers from repetitive clichés such as “compare Scripture with Scripture,” “plain and simple” and “face-value.” In his zeal to attack pretribulationism, Van Kampen failed to fully inform his readers about the system, or equip them to respond to better-informed arguments. What the book did achieve was to build an army of avid fans who adopted his sayings and attitude.
Although I have some reservations, Alan Kurschner’s book Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord serves prewrath rapturism far better than TRQA. I recommend it to anyone interested in the system. Review is HERE.
Mike Stallard’s review of Van Kampen’s book.
Sharing is caring!
