Ecclesiology is often neglected in debates over the rapture, but it makes all the difference. Readers will interpret a text differently depending on the assumptions they bring to it, and one weighty assumption for the rapture debate is the precise nature of the Church. Charles Ryrie in his classic work, Dispensationalism, calls the doctrine of the church the touchstone of pretribulationism.[1] Posttribulationist, and Historic Premillennialist, Don J. Payne, says his view shares a basic method of literal interpretation with (pretribulationist) dispensationalism, but it differs by “recognizing that in some spiritual sense the Church does fulfill the role of Old Testament Israel.”[2] Well-known Historic Premillennialist, George Eldon Ladd, admits to a less-than-literal approach to hermeneutics, but says he does so because he is convinced the New Testament (NT) takes Old Testament (OT) promises to Israel and applies them to the Church.[3]

The details of ecclesiology are still crucial among the more dispensational camps, which would include dispensational posttribulationism, the pre-wrath view, and mid-tribulationists. Dispensational posttribulationist, Robert H. Gundry, describes the heart of the matter:

In the chronological question concerning the rapture, the dispensational issue centers in the field of ecclesiology. An absolute silence in the OT about the present age, a total disconnection of the Church from the divine program for Israel, and a clean break between dispensations would favor pretribulationism: the Church would not likely be related to the seventieth week of Daniel, or tribulation, a period of time clearly having to do with Israel.[4]

The pre-wrath proponents and mid-tribulationists do not always acknowledge this as an important assumption, but it is still there. The original popularizer of the pre-wrath view, Robert Van Kampen, says that one milestone on his journey to reject the pre-tribulation rapture came when he studied the passages that describe the elect in the tribulation, concluding therefore, “the church would undergo persecution by Antichrist.”[5] The unspoken premise being that the elect and the Church are coextensive. Mid-tribulationist Gleason Archer calls the pretribulationist distinction between Israel and the Church, “radical.”[6] Another posttribulationist, Douglass Moo, agrees and says, “if a radical disjunction between Israel and the church is assumed, a certain presumption against the posttribulational position exists.”[7]

This blog series will defend this “radical” distinction between Israel and the Church and show how this leads to a pretribulation rapture. Robert Gundry’s work will be the primary foil because of its quality and because his ecclesiology is closest to pretribulationists, providing an ideal case study. The series will summarize the nature of the Church, form an argument for the pretribulation rapture, and demonstrate the importance of ecclesiology for key passages in the rapture debate.

Moo warns in Three Views on the Rapture, however, that to begin with a particular view of the relationship of Israel and the Church can easily lead to circular reasoning. Better to draw theological conclusions only after examining the rapture and second coming passages. He goes on, “however, some foundational issues must be addressed before this important task is begun.”[8] The first issue he addresses is the nature of the tribulation. But should he not have exegeted the rapture and second coming passages first, and only then draw conclusions on the nature of the tribulation? Is he not in danger of circular reasoning? Surely, he would respond that the nature of the tribulation will inform the exegesis of those passages, but so too will the nature of the Church. Circular reasoning is a danger, but so are unchecked assumptions. It only makes sense to examine the nature of what will be raptured before answering the question of its timing.

The next part of the series will do just that.

---

[1] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 143. The belief in the pretribulation rapture is almost exclusively among those in the broadly dispensational tradition, and dispensationalists have overwhelmingly tended toward pretribulationism.

[2] Don Payne, “The Theological Method of Premillennialism,” in A Case for Historic Premillennialism, eds. Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 97.

[3] George Eldon Ladd, Last Things (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 24.

[4] Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 1973), 12.

[5] Robert Van Kampen, The Rapture Question Answered: Plain and Simple (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1997), 48.

[6] Gleason Archer Jr., “The Case for the Mid-Seventieth-Week Rapture Position,” in Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Stanley Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 136.

[7] Douglas Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position,” in Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Stanley Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 171.

[8] Douglas Moo, Three Views, 172