# 3 Views on the Rapture (Archer, Moo, Feinberg)



## RamistThomist

Moo, Douglas., Archer, Gleason., Feinberg, Charles. _Three Views on the Rapture_.

Though the book is dated (pre-wrath has replaced mid-tribulationism), it remains valuable for a number of reasons. Reiter’s essay on the development of American premillennialism is worth the price of the book. Many have a tendency to lump all premils as rednecks who are looking for the Red Heifer. But what Reiter shows is that early premillennials were aware of difficulties in the system, and they tried to fix them.

Feinberg gives the standard pre-tribulational argument. Key argument: God has not only exempted the church from God’s wrath, but from the season of God’s wrath (Feinberg 58, 63). Feinberg’s key argument is that Revelation 3:10 means that God will keep the church out of the tribulation. 

He further claims there must be an interval of time between the Rapture and the 2 Coming (72). The Millennium has nonglorified bodies. And since all wicked will be immediately judged in the Second Coming (Matt. 25:31-46), then there must be a category of saved yet nonglorified bodies?

_Response: Douglas Moo_

The most fatal argument is that the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when his wrath will begin? This implies it hasn’t happened yet. Therefore, the time of Tribulation is not totally a time of wrath.

_Response: Gleason Archer_

Feinberg admits that the Day of the Lord referred to in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 does not start until the middle of the week (Feinberg 61). This is very close to pre-wrath.

Douglas Moo gives the post-trib argument, and since it is relatively familiar to American evangelicals, I will focus on Gleason Archer’s mid-tribulational view. It never gained much ground and has since been replaced by pre-wrath.

*The Case for the Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture*

The rapture will precede the second advent of Christ. So far that sounds like pre-trib, but there are a few differences. Archer places the rapture in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week.

Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19. This is the big weakness of post-tribulationism. Where do these saints come from (Archer 120). These saints appear to have already been “clothed” (2 Cor. 5:2; 1 John 3:2).

Two phases of the Parousia (cf. response to Moo, 213ff). There is no hint of apocalyptic struggle in the primary rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:13-18). In verse 14 it says “God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through (dia) Christ Jesus.” Those who have died in Christ will not be raised until the rapture (214). They will not accompany the Lord in his descent without their resurrected bodies.

*Conclusion*

So who won? Not really anyone. Feinberg made a few good points, but his church/israel dichotomy hamstrung his whole project. Moo’s responses were fairly good but post-trib is just so complex that I can’t follow him. Archer’s placing the rapture midway through the 70th week is interesting, if a bit arbitrary. I think Alan Kurschner’s recent teaching on pre-wrath holds more promise.


----------



## JimmyH

For anyone as clueless as I am ....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prewrath


----------



## RamistThomist

JimmyH said:


> For anyone as clueless as I am ....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prewrath



Pre-wrath is fairly simple among premillennial schemes. The church will be in the Great Tribulation (thlipsis megale), but will be raptured (arpazo) before God pours out his wrath on the world.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Pre-wrath is fairly simple among premillennial schemes. The church will be in the Great Tribulation (thlipsis megale), but will be raptured (arpazo) before God pours out his wrath on the world.


Except that God is pouring out upon the Earth divine wrath before just before the second coming event.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Except that God is pouring out upon the Earth divine wrath before just before the second coming event.



Every rapture position believes that. The thing that separates them is whether the church will be on earth during that outpouring of wrath.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Every rapture position believes that. The thing that separates them is whether the church will be on earth during that outpouring of wrath.


I do not see us as being here when the wrath from God Himself comes down, but will be here o expereince the wrath of man towards us.
I think Dr Archer also linked the mid trib rapture as when the 2 witnesses of god are killed and risen , and go back to heaven.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I do not see us as being here when the wrath from God Himself comes down, but will be here o expereince the wrath of man towards us.
> I think Dr Archer also linked the mid trib rapture as when the 2 witnesses of god are killed and risen , and go back to heaven.



Will we be on earth when God's wrath is poured out on the unbelievers?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Will we be on earth when God's wrath is poured out on the unbelievers?


In my understanding, that will be happening sometime midway through the end .


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> In my understanding, that will be happening sometime midway through the end .



Right. But will we be here?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Right. But will we be here?


I used to hold to a firm pretrib rapture, but now do not see that in the scriptures, so would still be a strong pre Mill, but a work in progress regarding other aspects of the events of end time.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

A good book on this topic is Alan Kurschner's Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord. In my opinion he puts the nail in the coffin on there being a pre-trib rapture. I was convinced of a mid trib, pre-wrath rapture of the Church after his book and podcasts. Although, I am once again reevaluating my eschatology. I will be refining my eschatology until the LORD calls me to glory.

https://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Before-Day-Lord-Christian/dp/0985363312

I also think this debate between Alan Kurschner and Thomas Ice is worth checking out.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfHKVpIuQf-ZUqQlB6r-RF2R4pkbduCSb


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> A good book on this topic is Alan Kurschner's Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord. In my opinion he puts the nail in the coffin on there being a pre-trib rapture. I was convinced of a mid trib, pre-wrath rapture of the Church after his book and podcasts. Although, I am once again reevaluating my eschatology. I will be refining my eschatology until the LORD calls me to glory.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Before-Day-Lord-Christian/dp/0985363312
> 
> I also think this debate between Alan Kurschner and Thomas Ice is worth checking out.
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfHKVpIuQf-ZUqQlB6r-RF2R4pkbduCSb



Very much agreed. On specific exegesis Kurschner probably brings more to the table than anyone else.


----------



## arapahoepark

Reformed Bookworm said:


> A good book on this topic is Alan Kurschner's Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord. In my opinion he puts the nail in the coffin on there being a pre-trib rapture. I was convinced of a mid trib, pre-wrath rapture of the Church after his book and podcasts. Although, I am once again reevaluating my eschatology. I will be refining my eschatology until the LORD calls me to glory.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Before-Day-Lord-Christian/dp/0985363312
> 
> I also think this debate between Alan Kurschner and Thomas Ice is worth checking out.
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfHKVpIuQf-ZUqQlB6r-RF2R4pkbduCSb


Better books are by Demar and Gentry.


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> Better books are by Demar and Gentry.



Gentry is committed to the Neronic thesis, which is highly suspect and unstable. Demar is stuck in 1970 where he thinks that every futurist is Hal Lindsey. Kurschner has repeatedly challenged him to a moderated debate.

https://www.alankurschner.com/2018/04/30/preterist-gary-demar-turns-down-debate-invitation/


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> Gentry is committed to the Neronic thesis, which is highly suspect and unstable. Demar is stuck in 1970 where he thinks that every futurist is Hal Lindsey. Kurschner has repeatedly challenged him to a moderated debate.
> 
> https://www.alankurschner.com/2018/04/30/preterist-gary-demar-turns-down-debate-invitation/


All of that is debatable because there are so many presuppositions guiding exegesis in all of them including Kurschner.


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> All of that is debatable because there are so many presuppositions guiding exegesis in all of them including Kurschner.



Sure, but the Neronic thesis has fallen on hard times, since the chronology of the seven or eight emperors doesn't really work. The David Chilton view of preterism is slightly more defensible, but it, too, has its own problems:

1) The worst tribulation in the history of the world is the death of 70,000 apostate Jews.
2) It's hard to see how this view doesn't lead to full preterism.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> A good book on this topic is Alan Kurschner's Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord. In my opinion he puts the nail in the coffin on there being a pre-trib rapture. I was convinced of a mid trib, pre-wrath rapture of the Church after his book and podcasts. Although, I am once again reevaluating my eschatology. I will be refining my eschatology until the LORD calls me to glory.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Before-Day-Lord-Christian/dp/0985363312
> 
> I also think this debate between Alan Kurschner and Thomas Ice is worth checking out.
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfHKVpIuQf-ZUqQlB6r-RF2R4pkbduCSb


Would you see the church being taken out then in the middle of the tribulation , as when the 2 Witnesses are killed doff and resurrected back to heaven then?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but the Neronic thesis has fallen on hard times, since the chronology of the seven or eight emperors doesn't really work. The David Chilton view of preterism is slightly more defensible, but it, too, has its own problems:
> 
> 1) The worst tribulation in the history of the world is the death of 70,000 apostate Jews.
> 2) It's hard to see how this view doesn't lead to full preterism.


The Great tribulation was not AD 70 though, not unless we are going into being a full Preierist.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Better books are by Demar and Gentry.


They come from a postmil/preterism viewpoint then?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> Would you see the church being taken out then in the middle of the tribulation , as when the 2 Witnesses are killed doff and resurrected back to heaven then?


My views were that the church would be removed the last third of the tribulation. As I stated above, I am reevaluating my eschatology. I am about to work my way through a few Reformed commentaries on Revelation and Daniel. I am also working through quite a few Reformed Systematic Theologies as well as Reformed books on eschatology. I am about to lead a Bible study through Revelation and I am challenging all of my previous held beliefs.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They come from a postmil/preterism viewpoint then?



They are the most outspoken postmillennialists on the planet.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> They are the most outspoken postmillennialists on the planet.


Do either of them tie the great tribulation event as being AD 70 then?


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> My views were that the church would be removed the last third of the tribulation. As I stated above, I am reevaluating my eschatology. I am about to work my way through a few Reformed commentaries on Revelation and Daniel. I am also working through quite a few Reformed Systematic Theologies as well as Reformed books on eschatology. I am about to lead a Bible study through Revelation and I am challenging all of my previous held beliefs.


I understand working through ones Eschatology, as I was at one time a very firm holder with the pre trib viewpoint, but now am still firmly premil, but leaning post trib Second Coming as the rapture event.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Do either of them tie the great tribulation event as being AD 70 then?



That's one of the main theses of partial (or full) preterism. Didn't you say you studied some of the theonomists? This is kind of basic stuff.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

I am not sure about them but a few theologians in my library make a good case for it being in AD 70. Dr Floyd Nolen Jones' exegesis of Daniel's Seventy Weeks in his Old Testament Chronology is worth consulting.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I am not sure about them but a few theologians in my library make a good case for it being in AD 70. Dr Floyd Nolen Jones' exegesis of Daniel's Seventy Weeks in his Old Testament Chronology is worth consulting.


Except the Lord Jesus tied the Great tribulation event into His Second Coming event itself, so unless either the Church had a bodily resurrection happening that none recorded down, or else He had an invisible return, how could that be AD 70?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's one of the main theses of partial (or full) preterism. Didn't you say you studied some of the theonomists? This is kind of basic stuff.


I have read some of the Dominion/Reconstructionist works, but Theonomy can be separated out from that viewpoint?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I have read some of the Dominion/Reconstructionist works, but Theonomy can be separated out from that viewpoint?



What I am getting at is that all of these guys have pushed the partial preterism narrative and are up front about what they are saying. Have you read any books about partial preterism?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> What I am getting at is that all of these guys have pushed the partial preterism narrative and are up front about what they are saying. Have you read any books about partial preterism?


Just the belief that in AD 70, God destruction of the Temple fulfilled the Olivet Discourse, as they see God judging Israel by that, and ushering in the new Kingdom state then and there!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Just the belief that in AD 70, God destruction of the Temple fulfilled the Oliver Discourse, as they see God judging Israel by that, and ushering in the new Kingdom state then and there!



Commas. Periods. 

Yes, they believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in some way was or prefigured the destruction of the Old Covenant Creation.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Commas. Periods.
> 
> Yes, they believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in some way was or prefigured the destruction of the Old Covenant Creation.


Which is interesting, as Peter seems to indicate that the entire earth will be reborn again, and Jesus links this to His Second Coming event itself.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Have eothe


BayouHuguenot said:


> Commas. Periods.
> 
> Yes, they believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in some way was or prefigured the destruction of the Old Covenant Creation.


This is not a loaded question but do you subscribe to this belief? 

Also, have either of y'all read Josephus' account of the destruction of Jerusalem?


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> This is not a loaded question but do you subscribe to this belief?



No. I reject preterism.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I reject preterism.


That is good, as it's not found in the Bible itself.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> That is good, as it's {preterism} not found in the Bible itself.


Well, to be precise, there is a distinction between _partial_ and _full_ preterism. Is there not an historicist that would deny being _partially preterist_, given that they would hold that _some_ of Revelation _was fulfilled in the past_?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, to be precise, there is a distinction between _partial_ and _full_ preterism. Is there not an historicist that would deny being _partially preterist_, given that they would hold that _some_ of Revelation _was fulfilled in the past_?


What is the major difference though between those 2 views?


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but the Neronic thesis has fallen on hard times, since the chronology of the seven or eight emperors doesn't really work. The David Chilton view of preterism is slightly more defensible, but it, too, has its own problems:
> 
> 1) The worst tribulation in the history of the world is the death of 70,000 apostate Jews.
> 2) It's hard to see how this view doesn't lead to full preterism.


And the worst event in Egypts history was the death of the firstborn?
We could go around and around. The chronology is fine.
I fail to see how the proof texts for tribulation comes to 7 years that have been seperated (when Revelation mentions 3 and a half years over and over) and that the one bringing and end to offering was the antichrist. I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> That is good, as it's not found in the Bible itself.


Good grief. Assertion after assertion after assertion. Please use hard exegetical, historical and church history evidence please without saying that the preterist interpretation cannot be found in the Bible.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> What is the major difference though between those 2 views?


Tolle Lege.


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> And the worst event in I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.



Have you read or interacted with many pre-wrathers? They are quite clear on that.


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> Have you read or interacted with many pre-wrathers? They are quite clear on that.


Not deeply. From my readings they share many of the same assumptions of foundational texts. I The umbilical cord has not been cut between the two.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.


arapahoepark said:


> Not deeply. From my readings they share many of the same assumptions of foundational texts. I The umbilical cord has not been cut between the two.



I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'll enumerate some differences
> 
> 1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.
> 
> 2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
> 
> 
> I'll enumerate some differences
> 
> 1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.
> 
> 2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.


I will keep that in mind.
Thanks!


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Good grief. Assertion after assertion after assertion. Please use hard exegetical, historical and church history evidence please without saying that the preterist interpretation cannot be found in the Bible.


I should have clarified that while the partial viewpoint can be supported from the scriptures, the full blown version that denies the future Second Coming and a physical resurrection has been seen as being heresy.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> And the worst event in Egypts history was the death of the firstborn?
> We could go around and around. The chronology is fine.
> I fail to see how the proof texts for tribulation comes to 7 years that have been seperated (when Revelation mentions 3 and a half years over and over) and that the one bringing and end to offering was the antichrist. I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.


many see the wrath of Man in first half, and then the wrath of God from midpoint on, as that would be when Mid trib rapture happens in that viewpoint.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Tolle Lege.


You are asking me to take up and read something?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'll enumerate some differences
> 
> 1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.
> 
> 2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
> 
> 
> I'll enumerate some differences
> 
> 1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.
> 
> 2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.


Actually, the position would be that the Church itself would be taken away right before Antichrist appears, and that there are also a great multitudes saved out for God in the tribulation that were unsaved before the Rapture event happened.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Actually, the position would be that the Church itself would be taken away right before Antichrist appears, and that there are also a great multitudes saved out for God in the tribulation that were unsaved before the Rapture event happened.



Are you talking about the dispensational view or the pre-wrath view?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are you talking about the dispensational view or the pre-wrath view?


No, rather how they traditionally see the pre trib/second coming distinction.


----------

