Pretribulation or
Prewrath?
by Charles Cooper
For those who are truly interested in the Scriptures and
are willing to search them, I offer the following response to Ron Graff's article that
appears on his website. After several individuals approached our
ministry about responding to Graff's article, I took a closer look at
his arguments only to be disappointed again. His attempt to refute the
prewrath position is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction so typical
of pretribulationists who speak loudly, but say very little that has
explicit scriptural support.
Graff begins his assessment of the Prewrath position by
offering his view of Problems With The Pre-Wrath View. Based on
Mr. Graff's writings in this article, I am not convinced that he read
the works of Robert Van Kampen before offering a word of advice to
others. He repeatedly misrepresents Mr. Van Kampen's position. Anyone
who reads Mr. Graff's work and does not check the original sources,
certainly would not be included in the camp of the Bereans who checked
Paul's teachings against the Scriptures.
Under Graff's heading: 1A - Antichrist will persecute the
Church, He writes,
After carefully studying both of Van Kampen's books (The Sign, and
The Rapture Question Answered), I believe that this statement of the
"core truth" of the prewrath view really does represent the key
differences between their position and the pretribulation position. It
identifies several questionable elements of their theology. These
debatable assumptions are:
1A - Antichrist will persecute the Church.
2A - Satan's wrath
ends at the Rapture and then God's wrath begins.
3A - The Rapture
takes place when Christ returns in great glory.
Cooper responds:
Graff makes a blatant error. Pretribulationists insist on
describing the Rapture and the Second Coming as two different events.
"When Christ returns in great glory" is a pretribber's way of referring
to the Lord's return at Armageddon. Van Kampen does not use such
language. Graff is combining pretrib language with Van Kampen's position
and is misrepresenting Van Kampen in the process. Pretribulationists
describe the Lord's return at Armageddon as coming in great glory down
to earth. However, Scripture does not make such an explicit distinction.
Show us the Scriptures, Mr. Graff.
Point 3A above should say, The Rapture takes place when
Christ cuts short the persecution of Satan/Antichrist and initiates the
Day-of-the-Lord's-wrath. Van Kampen teaches at least a six-month gap
between the Rapture and Armageddon (Dan. 12:11 and Rev. 9:5). No one
really knows how much time will elapse between the Rapture and
Armageddon. However, it must be long enough to allow for the salvation
of Israel at the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week (Dan. 9:24 and Rom.
11:24-26) and those Gentiles who enter the kingdom of God following the
sheep and goat judgment in Matthew 25:31ff.
Graff either has not read Van Kampen's works or is
purposely attempting to distort the record for personal advantage.
Graff writes,
The prewrath position does acknowledge the separate existence of
Israel and special treatment by God during the Tribulation when she is
driven into the wilderness (Rev. 12), but it assumes that they are not
saved until the very end, when they think the 144,000 are
sealedÉ
Cooper responds:
This is blatantly false. The prewrath position teaches
that the 144, 000 are sealed immediately after the Rapture, occurring
just before the breaking of the seventh seal, which must be at least 6
months before Armageddon. Revelation 9:5 indicates that the fifth
trumpet lasts for five months and Daniel 12:11 indicates Antichrist will
suffer destruction 30 days after the Seventieth Week of Daniel
ends--that's at least six months. How much longer, we do not know.
Daniel 9:24 demands that the salvation of Israel cannot occur before the
end of the Seventieth Week. The prophecy was determined to be 490 years,
not 483 or 487 and a half. The sealing of the 144, 000 occurs long
before the salvation of national Israel, which occurs at the end of
Daniel's Seventieth Week as Daniel 9:24 says. Where does Graff get his
information?
Graff writes,
The big problem with prewrath theology is the assumption that the
"elect" which are also "saints" of the Tribulation period are
basically the same as the Church. There are two main difficulties with
this view. First, the Church is missing.
Cooper responds:
That the church is missing (i.e. raptured), is a clear
assumption on Graff's part. Notice he offers no explicit scriptural
support for his claim. If the church is missing, then why does
Revelation 14:13 pronounce, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord
from now on!" Graff, John F. Walvoord and other pretribulationists all
teach that only the church can be described as "in the Lord."
Graff writes,
Of equal importance, this seven year Tribulation period is
definitely the last "week" of Daniel 9:27, and, as such, is a final
segment of Israel's history before the Millennial Kingdom. According
to the book of Revelation, the events of the period revolve around
Israel, The Temple, Jerusalem, the Two Witnesses, and the 144,000 from
the twelve tribes of Israel.
Cooper responds:
This is so typical of pretribbers who cannot see "the
forest for the trees." This is an example of dispensationalism taken to
an unnecessary extreme. This argument is based on two false notions: (1)
God cannot deal with Israel and the church at the same time, and (2) the
Old Testament is about Israel and not the church.
The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (a direct
fulfillment of Matthew 24:2), thirty years after the beginning of the
church, proves God can and does work with both Israel and the church at
the same time. The second false notion stated above is based on the
following logic. Pretribulationists insist that the church is a mystery
in the Old Testament, which means no information is given about it or
its future. Therefore, any discussion about Daniel 9 excludes the
church. Pretribulationists would further argue that the absence of the
term "church" in Revelation 4-19 proves their point. This is called an
argument from silence. The absence of the "term" church does not prove
the church is missing. However, what is really missing is explicit
scriptural proof.
In a clear case of circular reasoning, Graff argues: the
church is a mystery in the Old Testament. Therefore, it is unseen and no
information is given concerning it. Therefore, the Old Testament is
about Israel only. Since, they argue, this is the case, then the Old
Testament cannot be used to say what will or will not happen to the
church. That's circular reasoning.
The problem with this, however, is that the New Testament
writers did apply certain Old Testament Scriptures to the church. Peter
used Joel 2:28-32 to prove that the church begins at Pentecost (Acts.
2:17-21). Notice also Daniel 7:27, "Then the sovereignty, the dominion
and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be
given to the people of the saints (holy ones) of the Highest One; His
kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve
and obey Him." This passage clearly refers to the church since she will
reign with Christ for the kingdom period.
Whether certain Old Testament passages apply to the church
cannot be determined from the Old Testament. Only revelation from God
through the Apostles or prophets can show what passages apply to the
church and what passages do not. Many would not have applied Joel
2:28-32 to the church, but the Apostle Peter did. Since God has not
shown how all the prophetic passages of the Old Testament apply to the
church, it is a bit premature for pretribbers to be basing their
position on scriptural silence.
Under his second heading: 1B - Failure to distinguish
between Israel and the Church, Graff writes,
The fact is, when Jesus gave His explanation of future events,
known as the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and 25), the Church had just
been announced (Matthew 16:13-18), but it's composition and destiny,
including the Rapture, was still a mystery. This information would
later be revealed to the Apostle Paul. If Christ had discussed the
course of the Church age and the Rapture, it would have been very
confusing to the disciples at that time. The Church came into
existence on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and little by little, the
organization took shape. All of the early believers were Jewish, and
the new Church was seen as a continuation of their Old Testament
beliefs.
Cooper responds:
This is too good to pass up. Notice his statement: "If
Christ had discussed the course of the Church age and the Rapture, it
would have been very confusing to the disciples at that time." One
wonders how Graff could make such a ridiculous statement! Is this how
pretribulationists argue their positionÑwith presumption and irrational
arguments?
This is a classic "smoke and mirror" argument. In John
14:1-3, Jesus promised to come again and receive the Disciples to
Himself. Who doubts that John 14:1-3 is a promise of the Rapture? Jesus
gave the Olivet Discourse two days before his death, but John 14 was
given the night before His death. A careful reading of the Gospels
demonstrates that the Disciples were confused about everything, yet
Jesus taught them. Whether the Disciples did or did not understand was
not the determiner of what Jesus taught them.
Graff also states,
Van Kampen complains that when the pretribulation teachers relegate
the events of the Olivet Discourse to Israel, they fail to teach the
entire Gospel message. (Rapture, p. 103) We agree that students of the
Word should accept that all Scripture is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16),
and that all of it should be taught. However, not all sections apply
to all people. Everything in the Gospels is important and instructive
to the Church, but some portions are about the history of Israel,
beyond the age of the Church. To fail to make that distinction is to
do a great disservice to the Bible student.
Cooper responds:
If Matthew is the Jewish gospel, then why is the Olivet
Discourse included in Mark and Luke's gospels, which are clearly Gentile
gospels. A greater disservice to the Bible student is the
pretribulationists' foolish attempt to argue from silence (no explicit
scriptural support) while at the same time arguing as if the issues are
spelled out in black and white.
The issue is not whether some of the New Testament applies
to Israel and some to the church. The issue is which portions apply to
Israel and which apply to the church, a decision which God alone
determines. Pretribulationists are of very little help on this question
because they draw too sharp a distinction between national Israel and
the church, which leads to false conclusions. One of these false
conclusions is the idea that the disciples who received the Olivet
Discourse represented Israel and not the church or that Jesus did not
teach the disciples truth about the church until after Pentecost.
Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-20 should settle matter.
Under his third heading: 2B -Failure to distinguish
between the Church and the "saints" of the Tribulation, Graff
writes,
The prewrath Rapture theory equates Church with the "elect" of
Matthew 24:31 who are gathered by angels when Christ returns in power
and glory (Rapture, pp. 80-81). There are serious problems with this
view. The glorious visible return of Christ as King of Kings is quite
different from the promised Rapture of the ChurchÉ
Cooper responds:
This is the fundamental error of the pretrib position. The
term "elect" as used in Matthew 24:31 in context can only refer to one
groupÑthe church. There are only two elect groups in the Bible. One is
physical electionÑnational unsaved Israel and the other is
spiritualÑsaved Jews and Gentiles who compose the church. Matthew 24:24
states that the deceptive program of Antichrist will be so good that "if
possible, even the elect" would be deceived by them. This proves that
national Israel is not the "elect" of Matthew 24:24 because the nation
will very much be deceived by Antichrist.
It cannot refer to the saved remnant of Israel because
Revelation 12:6 states that the woman (the remnant of Israel) will flee
into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there
she would be nourished for one thousand, two hundred and sixty days
(during the great tribulation). So if the remnant of Israel is in
protective custody and the majority of Israel is deceived by Antichrist,
then the "elect" of Matthew 24:22, 24, and 31 must be the church.
But pretribulationists argue that the Jews and Gentiles
saved after the Rapture are not a part of the church. Yet, the apostle
Paul makes no distinction between the "elect" before the Rapture and the
"elect" after the Rapture. If Matthew 24:22, 24 and 31 refers to any
other group other than the church, it would be the only place in the New
Testament where the term "elect" is used and does not refer to the
church, Christ or angels. The burden of proof lies with those who say
the term does not apply to the church. They must prove it.
Graff writes,
The church is not named once in the entire account of the
Tribulation period in the Book of Revelation Chapters 4-19. This is
all the more noticeable since the word is used repeatedly in the first
three chapters, where Christ is seen walking among the churches, and
then sending messages to seven specific churches. The best explanation
for this is that the true Church, the bride of Christ, is taken from
the earth at the Rapture. At chapter 4, the Apostle John is told to
"Come up here." For the remainder of the vision, he is in the presence
of the Lord, looking down on the dreadful events of the Tribulation.
This is symbolic of the Rapture of the Church.
Cooper responds:
Graff fails to mention that when he makes the statement,
"There are serious problems with this view" that the "serious problems"
are his opinions. He offers not one explicit passage of Scripture to
support his positions. He uses the classic pretrib argument of silence.
The term "church" is not used in Revelation 4-19 so pretribbers conclude
the church has been raptured. John is supposedly a symbolic
representation of the Rapture of the church in Revelation 4. Such a view
displays a total disregard for a consistent method of interpretation.
What else is John symbolizing in the book? What is to stop us from using
symbolic representations in other areas of Scripture?
These arguments are old and sad. Craig A Blaising, who
taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, states in the book Three Views
of the Millennium and Beyond, "Progressive dispensationalists see
these "saints" as part of the body of Christ, thus a part of the church
as it is defined in the New Testament." (page 210). Now most progressive
dispensationalists are pretribbers, but at least they recognize that
pretribbers who argue that "saints" in Revelation 6-20 are not members
of the body of Christ are fundamentally in error.
Pretribulationists try to get extra mileage out of the
fact that the term "church" does not appear in chapters 4-19 of
Revelation. At first, this argument from silence seems to be a slam-dunk
for the pretrib position. But closer examination of the book of
Revelation reveals a problem. The term "church" does not appear again in
the book of Revelation after chapter three until the concluding note of
chapter 22. It is conspicuously absent in chapters 20 and 21. Does that
mean that the church is absent during the millennial reign of Christ
(Revelation 20)? Does this mean that the church is absent during
eternity (Revelation 21)? Of course, it does not!
The fact that the term "church" does not appear in
Revelation after chapter 4 is a very important question. The church does
not show up on earth and neither does it show up in heaven. The fact
that it does not show up in heaven is an even greater problem for
pretribbers. According to pretribulationists, John symbolizes the church
in Revelation 4. Well, if John can symbolize the church in Revelation 4,
perhaps there are other symbols of the church in chapters 6-20. Who is
to say? This is laughably sad. Is this the best pretribbers can do?
There is one reason that the term "church" is not used in
Revelation 4-21. It maintains the very important point of Matthew 24:36.
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,
nor the Son, but the Father alone." The mystery of the timing of the
Rapture is maintained throughout the New Testament and especially the
book of Revelation. No one can explicitly discern the timing of the
Rapture in the book of Revelation. We know it comes before the wrath of
God begins in chapter eight, but there is not one explicit direct
reference to the most important event in the future of the church. Why?
It protects the anonymity of the Lord's return, as He wanted.
Graff writes,
During the Tribulation, however, there are "saints." They are also
called the "elect." They are undoubtedly true believers in Jesus
Christ, because there has been "no other name under heaven given to
men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 (NIV) Just as it has always
been, they may be Jews or Gentiles who have decided to receive Christ
as Savior. As the story unfolds in the book of Revelation, these
believers will undergo great persecution, and many of them will be
martyred for the cause of Christ. Those who die are the subject of the
Fifth Seal (Revelation 6:9-11). Those who survive to the end will be
gathered together by angels (Matthew 24:31) and will undoubtedly be
the mortals who populate the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation
20).
Cooper responds:
Graff's use of the words "undoubtedly" and "may be"
indicate a lack of explicit scriptural support. He can not be dogmatic
because he does not have Scripture to support his claims.
Under the heading: 3B - An unfair test (Rapture or
Armageddon?), Graff writes,
Van Kampen suggests a test he has given to prophesy classes he has
taught over the years. First read the following Biblical passage:
Matthew 24:27-40
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the
west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28 Wherever there is
a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 "Immediately after
the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon
will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the
heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30 "At that time the sign of the
Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth
will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the
sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels
with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four
winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 "Now learn this
lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its
leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
33 Even so, when you
see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the
door.
34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not
pass away until all these things have happened.
35 Heaven and earth
will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36 "No one knows
about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,
but only the Father.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will
be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For in the days before the
flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in
marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
39 and they knew
nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all
away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
40
Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other
left.
Van Kampen has them read verses 27, 30-31 and 37-40, then asks,
"Now, decide which event Christ had in mind when He gave this specific
instruction to His disciples. Does this passage refer to the battle of
Armageddon as recorded in Revelation 19:11-21, or does it refer to the
rapture of the saints as recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17?"
(Rapture, pp. 106-107) He then states that everyone in his classes has
always thought it was about the Rapture.
Cooper responds:
Graff has purposely skewed Van Kampen's illustration to
serve his purpose. Van Kampen asked his students to read both Matthew
24 and Revelation 19.
Revelation 19:11-21
And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He
who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He
judges and wages war. And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His
head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one
knows except Himself. And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and
His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven,
clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white
horses. And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may
smite the nations; and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He
treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on
His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND
LORD OF LORDS." And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried out
with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven,
"Come, assemble for the great supper of God; in order that you may eat
the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty
men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh
of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great." And I saw
the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make
war against Him who sat upon the horse, and against His army. And the
beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs
in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of
the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive
into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were
killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat upon the
horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.
Cooper responds:
Van Kampen then asks his audience to vote on whether the
two passages are alike or unalike.
Graff writes,
The question itself is flawed. There is no reference in these
verses [Matt. 24:27, 20-31 and 37-40] to any battle, much less the
specific battle of Armageddon.
Cooper responds:
That's the point Mr. Graff! There is no battle mentioned
in Matthew 24. Matthew talks about a gathering of the "elect."
Revelation talks about a battle of destruction for the wicked. There is
no gathering of God's elect mentioned in Revelation 16-19. Matthew 24
does not mention a battle between God and Antichrist.
Graff writes,
If the question were to be worded fairly it should ask, "Does this
passage refer to the glorious return of Christ as recorded in
Revelation 19:11-21, or does it refer to the rapture of the saints as
recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17." In that case, knowledgeable
students would be most likely to choose the Glorious Return
(Italic added).
Cooper responds:
So now at issue with Mr. Graff is one's
"knowledgeableness." If a person concludes that Matthew 24:31 and
Revelation 19:11 are not referring to the same event, the person is not
a "knowledgeable student." But if one is "smart," he or she will
immediately see that Matthew 24:31 and Revelation 19:11 refer to the
same event. This is foolish and nonsensical.
Graff writes,
Van Kampen wouldn't word the question in this way because he
evidently does not believe that there are two separate events. In
fact, he ridicules the pretribulation view as teaching that the Church
should be looking for the second coming, but Israel should be waiting
for the third coming. (Rapture, p. 95) Of course, this is not what is
taught by pretribulation teachers. It is easily provable that there
are two distinct events coming - The Rapture and The Glorious Return.
(See "Failure to distinguish between the Rapture and The Glorious
Return of Christ" below) Pretribulation scholars refer to both events
as "The Second Coming," just as the many events of Jesus' earthly
sojourn were all part of His "First Coming."
Cooper responds:
Pretribulationists must maintain a separate glorious
return from the Rapture or else they would have no position. The fact
that they have no explicit scriptural foundation for their view seems to
escape their attention.
Matthew 24:3 indicates that the Disciples asked the Lord,
"what would be the sign of Your coming?" The term "coming" is the Greek
word parousia. It is used three times in Matthew 24. Now in order to get
around the obvious meaning of this term, pretribulationists maintain
that the word refers to two comings: Christ comes for His own
(the Rapture) and Christ comes with His own (glorious return at
Armageddon). The only problem with this conclusion is its lack of
explicit scriptural support.
Christ has two parousias. His first parousia occurred two
thousand years ago. His second parousia will occur some time in the
future. It will start with the Rapture and conclude with Armageddon. The
amount of time between the Rapture and Armageddon will be no longer than
three and a half years and no less than six months. See Revelation 9:5
and Daniel 12:11. Van Kampen clearly indicates that the Rapture and
Armageddon are not the same event. Rather, the Rapture and Armageddon
are two halves of the same event separated by an undetermined length of
time.
Under the heading: 2A -Satan's wrath ends at the Rapture
and then God's wrath begins. Graff writes,
Using Revelation 12:12, and 13:4-7, Van Kampen says that Satan's
wrath is the persecution of God's elect. (Rapture, p. 58). These verse
(sic) state:
Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe
to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He
is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short."
Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the
beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the
beast? Who can make war against him?" The beast was given a mouth to
utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for
forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander
his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was
given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he
was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
Revelation 13:4-7(NIV)
Graff writes,
When one studies this passage, it is clear that Satan's wrath is a
reaction to God's wrath. God punishes Satan by casting him down to
earth. This makes him angry. He is, in fact given power to persecute
believers ("the saints") during the last half of the Tribulation (42
months). The proper way of seeing the Tribulation is that it is the
time of both God's wrath and Satan's wrath as he struggles against the
sovereignty of God. Even in this present time we can see the same
thing, to a lesser degree. Peter says that the Devil is like a roaring
lion, seeking whom he may devour, and causing persecution of
believers. (1 Peter 5:8-9)
Cooper responds:
Graff purposely obscures the distinctions between the Day
of the Lord's wrath and the temporal wrath of God that abides on the
wicked every single day. God's Day of the Lord wrath is unique and must
be seen in the context of the end-times. God allows Satan three and a
half years of persecution. No where, and I do mean no where, does
Scripture say that God's Day-of-the-Lord-wrath runs concurrent with
Satan's wrath. Scripture states just the opposite. Matthew 24:22
indicates that God will cut the great persecution short. The reason God
gives for cutting the persecution short is to save the lives of the
elect. If the wrath of God has already started why would God save some
elect and not others. The fact is God cuts the persecution
shortÑdelivers the righteous and begins the punishment of the
wicked.
Given the fact that faithful followers of Jesus Christ
will be beheaded during the great tribulation, no sane person would
credit such a slaughter to God. Yet, this is exactly what one must do if
he or she makes the great tribulation the wrath of God.
The great tribulation begins with the wrath of Satan
against God's elect, but it ends with God's wrath against Satan's
Antichrist and those who take his mark.
Under the heading: 1B - Artificial shift from Satan's
wrath to God's wrath, Mr. Graff writes,
Using the illustrations of the days of Noah and the days of Lot in
Luke 17:22-30, Van Kampen concludes that the Rapture will occur on the
very day that God's wrath begins, thus ending the wrath of Satan.
(Rapture, pp. 56-59). The passage does not refer to the Rapture, but
to the Glorious Return of Christ. The worst expression of God's wrath
will be delivered at that time because the battle of Armageddon is
fought. But that is not to say that the earlier part of the
Tribulation is not also the result of God's wrath.
Cooper responds:
Graff does not recognize that Revelation 12:12 indicates
that Satan comes down to earth with great wrath against Israel and her
offspring. The amount of time Satan is given is exactly three and a half
years, which is exactly how long the great tribulation runs and the
exact amount of time Satan empowers Antichrist to persecute the people
of God. Therefore, the period labeled "the great tribulation" must be
the wrath of Satan against God's people.
There is not one passage of Scripture that indicates
God's wrath is poured out during the first three and a half years of
Daniel's Seventieth Week.
Under the heading: 2B - Assumption that God's wrath does
not begin until Christ returns. Graff writes,
The prewrath assumption that God's wrath does not start until just
before the battle of Armageddon does not fit the facts revealed in the
book of Revelation.
Cooper responds:
This is a purposeful distortion of the prewrath position.
At no point, does the prewrath position teach that the wrath of God
begins at Armageddon. I defy Mr. Graff to show the reader in writing one
statement that supports his claim that Mr. Van Kampen ever taught such a
position.
Graff writes,
In Revelation 3:10 the Church at Philadelphia was given the promise
that they would be kept "from the hour of trial that is going to come
upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth." The
implication is clear that God's wrath would be poured out on the whole
evil world as He had done at the time of the flood. In Chapters 4 and
5, future events are seen as emanating from God's sovereign throne.
Jesus Christ, as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb who was
slain, is the only one worthy to open the seals of the scroll.
Starting with chapter 6, Jesus opens the seals, one at a time, and
each time, events transpire which represent God's wrath and judgment,
usually on the whole earth.
Cooper responds:
Where in Revelation 5 and 6 does it say that the seals are
the wrath of God? As a matter of fact, the fifth seals martyrs' question
to God proves that seals 1-4 are not the wrath of God. They ask God,
"How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and
avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth." (Rev. 6:10).
If the "hour of testing" is the wrath of God, it cannot
have started yet, given the question of the martyrs. Their questions
states that God has and is refraining from judging and taking vengeance
on the wicked. Notice the Lord's answer, "Éthey were told that they
should rest for a little while longer, untilÉthere fellow servants and
brethren who were to be killedÉwould be completed also." The wrath of
God against the wicked that are alive on the earth has not yet stated.
Plain and simple.
Graff writes,
In chapter 7 God holds back the strong angels who have power to
harm the earth until the 144,000 can be sealed.
Cooper responds:
This proves that God's wrath has not started. If the wrath
of God had started, He would have sealed the 144, 000 before the seals
begin.
Graff writes,
In chapter 12, as mentioned before, Satan's wrath is displayed, but
it is the result of God's wrath leveled against him.
Cooper responds:
Where is Graff's proof for this statement? Scripture does
not indicate that the wrath of God begins before Michael and his angels
throw Satan out of heaven. This is an assumption without biblical
support.
Graff writes,
At the midpoint of the Tribulation, when people must decide whether
or not to receive the "mark of the beast," it is said that God's
judgment has come. Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he
had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-- to
every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice,
"Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has
come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the
springs of water." A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen
is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening
wine of her adulteries." A third angel followed them and said in a
loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives
his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the
wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup
of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence
of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment
rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for who worship
the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his
name." Revelation 14:6-11
Cooper responds:
Graff has based the above statement on an assumption of
which the reader may not be aware. He assumes that Revelation 14
describes events that transpire at the midpoint of the Seventieth Week
of Daniel. Revelation 14:1 places Jesus and the 144, 000 standing on
Mount Zion. Surely, this cannot be at the midpoint of Daniel's
Seventieth Week. After the Rapture, according to pretribulationalists,
Jesus does not come back to the earth until Armageddon. Proof please,
Mr. Graff!
Under the heading: 3A -The Rapture takes place when Christ
returns in great glory, 1B - Failure to distinguish between the Rapture
and The Glorious Return of Christ, Graff writes,
The key passage for the prewrath view is the Olivet Discourse
(Matthew 24 and 25). There is only one return of Christ in view there,
and that is at the end of the sequence of events describing the Great
Tribulation. Matthew 24:30 states that, "They will see the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Van
Kampen says this is the Rapture. However, there are many differences
between the Rapture and the Glorious Return of Christ. Here are some
of these differences:
|
The Rapture |
The Glorious Return |
|
Christ comes for His own
1 Thessalonians
4:13-18 |
Christ returns with His own
Revelation
19:14 |
|
Believers taken to Father's House
John
14:3 |
Believers come to Earth
Matthew
24:30 |
|
Seen only by believers
1 Corinthians
15:4 |
Every eye will see Him
Revelation 1:7;
19:11-16;
Matthew 24:30 |
|
No reference to Satan |
Satan bound
Revelation 20:1-3 |
|
Earth not judged |
Earth judged
Revelation 20:4-5 |
|
A Mystery
1 Corinthians 15:51 |
Foretold in Old Testament
Daniel
12:1-3;
Zechariah 12:10; 14:4 |
Cooper responds:
Graff must think that his readers are either mentally
challenged or he maybe he assumes that he determines the meaning of
Scripture. Graff's statement that Matthew 24-25 describes only one
return of Christ is purposefully misleading. Matthew 24:31 describes
Christ coming together the elect. Matthew 25:31 describes Christ coming
to judge the nations. There is nothing to stop the reader from seeing
Matthew 24:31 as the beginning of the Lord's parousia and Matthew 25:31
as the end of the Lord's parousia. One describes the Rapture and the
other describes the sheep and goat judgment that immediately follows
Armageddon.
At first glance, the above chart appears convincing, but a
closer examination reveals error after error.
First, Revelation 19:14 does not say the church will
return with Christ at Armageddon. It says the Lord returns with "his
armies." "His armies" clearly applies to angels. However, whether the
church is included is debatable. The church is not mentioned directly or
indirectly in Revelation 20 and 21.
Second, Matthew 24:30 does not in any way, shape, form, or
fashion, state that believers are returning with Christ. Just read it!
"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then
all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory."
Third, 1 Corinthians 15:52 does not state that believers
will be the only ones to see the Lord return at the Rapture. This
assumption is stated as fact! Where does Graff get his material?
Fourth, the binding of Satan for one thousand years is
only mentioned in Scripture one time.
Fifth, earlier Graff indicated that the wrath of God
begins at the Rapture, which would certainly indicate that the earth
receives judgment. Yet, his chart says, "earth not judged" at Rapture.
Which is it? That's called a contradiction. Paul states in 2
Thessalonians 2:1-2 that God's wrath is connected to the Rapture. He
writes, "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 shakenÉ that the day of the Lord has come." That's Rapture and
wrath tied together.
The sixth and final error in Mr. Graff's chart concerns
the mystery of the Rapture. According to Graff, the Rapture is a
mystery, but the glorious return of Christ is predicted in the Old
Testament. If the Rapture is a mystery in the Old Testament, then one
will not find information about it in the Old Testament. However, that
does not mean that the Rapture and the glorious return of the Lord are
not connected. That information must be obtained from the New Testament.
Graff has not shown one NT passage that supports his conclusion. Not
one!
Under the heading: 2B - Who is left to populate the
Millennial Kingdom, Graff writes,
If the Rapture were to take place just before the battle of
Armageddon, and all the believers were taken just before the final
events of the Tribulation, what people would become believers at the
very last moments so that there would be godly people to populate the
Millennial Kingdom? Van Kampen's thought is that this is where the
144,000 come in. (Rapture, pp. 53-54)
Cooper responds:
Given Graff's familiarity with Van Kampen's writings, I
can only assume that he is purposefully trying to distort Van Kampen's
position in order to win his argument. Van Kampen has never directly or
indirectly taught that the Rapture occurs "just before the final events
of the Tribulation." Van Kampen would argue based on Daniel 12:11 and
Revelation 9:5 that the Rapture must occur at least 6 months before
Armageddon. The chart in Van Kampen's book, The Sign, clearly shows that
the salvation of Israel and the sheep and goat judgment must follow the
Rapture. Where does Graff get his material?
Under the heading: 3B - The Judgment of the Sheep and
Goats, Graff writes,
According to Matthew 25:31-46, there will be a judgment of "sheep"
and "goats" based on how people treated Israel. In the pretribulation
view, surviving believers of the Tribulation period will qualify as
the "sheep." In the prewrath view, all believers would have been taken
at the Rapture and only a remnant from Israel itself would become
believers at the very end. It is difficult to imagine that these new
converts could be the "sheep" who acted kindly toward
Israel.
Cooper responds:
This is not Van Kampen's view. Graff confuses the prewrath
position with traditional posttribulationism. Please read the book!
Graff writes,
Van Kampen offers a very unorthodox explanation of this dilemma.
Since it is obvious that these Gentile survivors have not yet accepted
Christ (or they would have gone up at the Rapture shortly before this
time), he says that they will have trusted Christ when they saw Him
face to face "when the Son of Man comes in His glory." (Matthew 23:31)
(Sign, pp. 403-405) I didn't notice any mention of this theory in his
later book, probably because of difficulties in supporting this
view.
Cooper responds:
This is not Van Kampen's view! The particular pages
referred to in the above paragraph deal with the sheep and goat judgment
not the Rapture of the Saints.
Under the heading: 4B - The Parable of the Wheat and
Tares, Graff writes,
The Parable of the Wheat and Tares also refers to the separation of
believers from non-believers at the end of this ageÉThis parable make
good sense from a pretribulation point of view because it is similar
to the Judgment of Sheep and Goats. In both cases, there are many
believers and many non-believers. This takes place at "the end of the
age" and the agents are angels. It is difficult for the prewrath
position because that view does not allow for a large number of
believers at the end of the age.
Cooper responds:
This is a misrepresentation of Van Kampen's view. Van
Kampen takes the position that the Parable of the Wheat and Tares is the
Rapture. God will separate the righteous and the wicked by removing the
righteous to heaven and punishing the wicked that remain on earth.
Graff writes,
Again, I did not notice the use of this parable in Van Kampen's
later book, The Rapture Question Answered, but is used repeatedly in
The Sign. This passage is listed at least 15 times in the Scripture
Index of that book. In The Sign, the author usually listed this
passage as a proof for the Rapture, saying, for instance, As we
continue, we will see that when believers are received by Christ in
the clouds at the Rapture of the church, it will be the angels of God
who "gather the wheat into My barn" (Matt. 13:30) and who "gather His
elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other"
(Matt. 24:31), and that "we who are alive and remain shall be caught
up [by God's angels] together with them in the clouds, to meet the
Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:17) (Sign, p. 296)
Cooper responds:
The reason Van Kampen did not use this passage in The
Rapture Question Answered was due to space limitations and he did
not feel the argument was necessary to prove his case. However, he used
this passage in The Sign, which presents his position
clearly.
Graff writes,
Notice the mixing of expressions from this parable with the classic
passage about the Rapture. This passage simply can not refer to the
Rapture, because it is stated that it takes place "at the end of the
age," and even more importantly, the weeds, or tares, are collected
FIRST, bundled for burning (presumably at a later time - The White
Throne Judgment), and THEN the wheat is gathered into the
barns.
Cooper responds:
Please notice Matthew 13:39 states, "and the harvest is
the end of the age." Then again, Matthew 13:40, "so just as the tares
are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the
age." Jesus states that the "harvest" "is the end of the age." The
harvest is the consummation of the age. That is the time when God will
separate the righteous from the wicked. This is the point of the
parable. The separation of the righteous and the wicked will begin at
the Rapture and continue until the Sheep and Goat Judgment, which
follows Armageddon.
The "end of the age" is not a point in time, but rather
covers a period months or maybe even years. Only God knows how long He
will allow the persecution of Antichrist to run before He cuts it short
with His wrath (Matt. 24:22, 24). "The end of the age" will start with
the Rapture and continue until the Sheep and Goat Judgment, which
immediately precedes the beginning of the millennium.
However, what the order of that separation will be is not
the primary point of the parable. That this is the case is easily
proven. The disciples asked Jesus in Matthew 24:3, "What will be the
sign of Your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?" This
indicates that the coming of Christ and the end of the age are tied
together. Jesus answers the question in Matthew 24:29 and 30. The sign
of the Son of Man immediately follows the sign that signals the "end of
the age." The sign that Jesus gives that indicates the "end of the age"
is the same sign repeatedly given to indicate the beginning of the Day
of the Lord. Even a limited reading of the Old Testament will
demonstrate that sign in the sun, moon, and stars signal the coming of
God's wrath.
Therefore, the "end of the age" must cover a period of
time because the fifth trumpet of Revelation 9:1-11 covers a five month
period. No one doubts that the fifth trumpet is part of the wrath of
God. The fact that John indicates that the sign in the sun, moon, and
stars will occur at the sixth seal means that the wrath of God begins at
the seventh seal. Thus, the trumpets and bowls are the wrath of God.
This is Van Kampen's position which is very different from what Graff
says.
Pretribulationists make a big deal of the fact that the
Lord says that the wicked (tares) will be gathered first, and then the
righteous will be gathered after them. Yet, there is not one passage in
the whole of the N.T. that teaches that the wicked will be gathered
first at the Lord's return unless Matthew 13:36-43 can be shown to do
so. Matthew 24:31 which pretribulationists argue is the return of the
Lord at Armageddon does not mention a gathering of the wicked.
The parable of the wheat and tares is just thatÑa parable.
One must be careful to not say more than the parable intended to teach.
Clearly, the Lord does not mean the reader to understand that the
harvest of the righteous and wicked at the end of the age will be just
like a wheat harvest in every sense of the word. For example, the wheat
is cut with a sharp knife. The wheat is put on a floor and beaten. Tares
are burned up completely. They no longer exist after the burning. In the
culture of that day, tares were pulled up by the root long before the
harvest. But the Lord changed the figure of speech. The tares would
remain until the harvest.
The sheep and goat judgment (Matt. 25) indicates that the
righteous and wicked are gathered together and separated by the Lord,
not angels. Therefore, Matthew 13 cannot be talking about the sheep and
goat judgment. The only other possibility is the Rapture.
Conclusion
Graff writes,
I have noticed that a surprising number of young pastors have
adopted the prewrath position. One possible reason for this is the
normal desire of each generation to "go beyond" the previous one. It
is actually a good thing for young scholars to test what they have
been taught, and especially to compare it to the
Scripture.
Cooper responds:
Implication of Graff's statement: if one takes the
prewrath position he is young and na•ve. They simple want to "go beyond"
the previous one." Graff assumes pretribulationism is correct and "young
pastors" want to simply "go beyond" the truth.
Graff writes,
Another possible reason for the wide-spread interest in the
prewrath theory comes from the fact that most pastors are really not
up to speed in eschatology. They realize that nearly one third of the
Bible is prophecy, but they have not invested the time to know it
well. Van Kampen himself says that he spent nine thousand hours of
Bible study and research during eight years to develop his
eschatology. ("Join the club, Robert! Every serious prophecy teacher
has invested many years in concentrated study). What he did though
that gives a huge boost to his teaching, is to give free copies of his
large and colorful book to pastors. Hopefully, most of them will
continue to read other works to balance their
knowledge.
Cooper responds:
Implications of Graff statement:
First, pastors are adopting the prewrath position because
they simply do not know eschatology.
Second, when pastors get smarter, they will abandon the
prewrath position for the right position--pretribulationism.
Third, a free book has made pastors take the position. The
Jehovah Witnesses ought to love that one.
Graff writes,
What difference does it make whether we accept the pretribulation
or the prewrath viewpoint? To Van Kampen, the stakes are great. He
says, "your view of end times may determine whether you, your
children, or your grandchildren survive the onslaught of Antichrist or
die at his hands." (Rapture, p. 131) Just like the postribulation
(sic) view, the bottom line for the prewrath folks is survival. By
contrast, the bottom line for the pretribulation view is evangelism
and holy living. But let's admit that godly prewrath believers can be
just as evangelistic as their pretribulation brothers and sisters. And
shouldn't we all be wise enough to prepare for the future? In any
case, Jesus expects us to love one another.
Cooper responds:
This is an over simplification of Van Kampen's position.
Survival is not the primary objective of the prewrath position. Truth
is!
Ron Graff, like so many others, attempts to argue the
faults of the prewrath position by showing the strength of the
pretribulation position. But they consistently defeat themselves because
they have no explicit scriptural basis for their position. It would be
better to simply compare the two positions and allow each reader to make
up his or her own mind. One could conclude that the reason none are
willing to do this is fear, a fear, which certainly does not come from
God.