The second chapter of Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians is a mighty tour-de-force polemic for the pre-tribulational nature of the rapture of the Church.  It has long been recognized that the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:7 is the Holy Spirit, and that His removal before the Antichrist is revealed (i.e., before the Tribulation begins) necessitates the rapture of the Church due to the Spirit’s indwelling of the Body of Christ as a temple in the present dispensation (1Cor6:19).  It has more recently been recognized that the “falling away” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV; Greek, apostasia) that also must occur before the Antichrist is revealed is in context better understood to be a departure (i.e., the rapture of the Church).  However, even without these clear and powerful witnesses, a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church is a necessary inference from Paul’s opening to the chapter in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Paul introduces the subject of the chapter as “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him”.  The subject is a single event, since the first substantive clause is articulated and the second is not, being connected by an epexegetical kai in the Greek text (i.e., the Granville Sharp rule).  Paul’s subject is that particular “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” which involves “our gathering together unto him” (cf. Jn14:1-3; 1Thess4:13-18). Thus, the subject of the chapter is the rapture of the Church.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, it is revealed that the Thessalonians had become “shaken in mind” and “troubled”, apparently as a result of a “letter as from us” (i.e., a letter alleging to be from the Apostle Paul, which was in fact a forgery). Their alarm was caused by the fact that the letter asserted that “the day of the Lord” had begun. The remainder of the chapter presents an iron-clad polemic for why that could not possibly be the case. However, one must ask why this news so disturbed the Thessalonians; why were the Thessalonians shaken?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:5 Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he had previously instructed them concerning this subject. Indeed, Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians discusses the rapture in every chapter (cf. 1Thess1:9-10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13-17; 5:1-11). Presumably Paul had taught them when the rapture would occur relative to the coming 7-year Tribulation (i.e., the day of the Lord; 2Thess2:2). If he had taught them that the rapture of the Church would occur mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib (i.e., any view that sees the rapture of the Church as occurring at some point during the Tribulation; see FIGURE 1), there is no reason for the Thessalonians to be “shaken” or “troubled”. There would be no inconsistency between those rapture views and the counterfeit message alleging that the Tribulation had begun. Rather than causing them to be “shaken”, such news would be cause for excitement and anticipation, since it would mean that their rapture was necessarily drawing near. However, if Paul had taught the Thessalonians that the rapture of the Church would occur before the Tribulation begins (i.e., pre-trib), then it is easily understandable why news that it had begun would be so troubling; if true, it would mean either: 1) that Apostle Paul’s previous teaching was untrue, or 2) the rapture of the Church had already occurred, and they had been left behind.

Only a belief in a pre-trib rapture as taught to the Thessalonians by the Apostle Paul explains why they were so “shaken” and “troubled” by the counterfeit message that the day of the Lord (i.e., the Tribulation) had begun. No other rapture view would have troubled the believers at Thessalonica. Properly understood, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 is a powerful witness to the fact that the Apostle Paul taught that the rapture of the Church would be pre-trib!

A proper dispensational understanding of the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15) absolutely necessitates a pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church.

What is the Church? The Church is being formed during the present Dispensation of Grace and is comprised of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile, who are subsequently baptized into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Furthermore, the Church is not (the nation of) Israel, or any other nation, but a unique body comprised of believers from all nations. However, if the Church is present on earth during the Tribulation period (i.e., the 70th Week of Daniel; Daniel 9:27), all who believe during the Tribulation must become members of the “Church”. If this is to be the case, there can be no “saved” nation of Israel or Gentile nations present on earth at the end of the Tribulation to enter the Millennial Kingdom.

Utter confusion results if the Church is present on earth during the Tribulation. But thanks be to God, who has promised to remove the completed Church, the Body of Christ, at the Rapture (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Revelation 3:10). During the Tribulation, the Church will be wed to Christ in heaven (Revelation 19:7-8), and those on earth who believe and endure to the end make up the “saved” nations who enter the Millennial Kingdom at the second coming of Christ.

Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians was written as a response to a query that church had sent to the Apostle. The Thessalonians were troubled by a letter they had received, purportedly from Paul (but actually a forgery), alleging that they had entered into “the day of the LORD” (2Thess2:2). They were troubled by this since Paul had previously taught them that the rapture of the Church would happen before the outpouring of God’s wrath during the Tribulation period (1Thess4:13-5:9); if this allegation were true, and the day of the LORD had indeed begun, that meant the believers in Thessalonica had been left behind! It should be noted that the believers in Thessalonica were undergoing intense (albeit local) persecution (1Thess3:2-4), so that it was no doubt tempting for them to believe that the Tribulation had begun.

Paul’s reply was to immediately remind them of what he had previously taught them (2Thess2:5); namely, that the Antichrist cannot even be “revealed”, which begins the Tribulation (Dan9:27), until after an event he calls “the falling away” (2Thess2:3). The Greek noun translated “falling away” is apostasia, transliterated as ‘apostasy’ in some English versions. The correct translation of apostasia is ‘departure’; exactly what kind of departure is in view depends upon context, and can just as likely mean a physical departure as it does a departure from the faith (i.e., apostasy). It is interesting that all English translations before the KJV rendered apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as “departure”, whereas the KJV and most subsequent translations render it “falling away” or something which similarly implies the ‘departure’ is religious in nature. There is nothing in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, however, that demands (or even suggests) that the departure to which Paul refers be non-physical.

Furthermore, in the Greek text there is the definite article in conjunction with apostasia, so that the best translation is not “a falling away”, but “the departure”. The use of the definite article means that Paul is referring to a specific event that he expects is already known to the Thessalonians. Since Paul’s first epistle to them included the most detailed revelation of the rapture of the Church in the N.T., and in fact mentions the rapture in every chapter (1Thess1:9-10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13-17; 5:1-11), while not one reference to a religious apostasy or departure from the faith occurs, context demands that the specific departure to which Paul refers is the rapture. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 also supports this, since the rapture, referred to as “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him”, introduces the chapter (2Thess2:1). Thus, the evidence is overwhelming that the departure Paul holds out as necessarily taking place before “the day of the LORD” and the revealing of the Antichrist is the rapture of the Church. Thus, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the most explicit teaching of the Pre-Trib rapture in the Bible.

With the rise of Dispensationalism in the 19th century, the use of a literal (i.e., grammatical-historical) hermeneutic to interpret Scripture began to be employed in an increasingly consistent manner in all areas of Biblical revelation.  This new (or renewed) consistency in the use of a literal hermeneutic naturally led to new insights in many areas of theology.  As an example, a literal hermeneutic applied to prophetic passages in the New Testament led students of the Bible to conclude that the Rapture of the Church was a phase of the return of Christ that had to be distinguished from the 2nd Coming.  That is, the yet future return of Christ will actually be comprised of two distinct events separated in time:  1) the Rapture of the Church, in which Christ comes in the air to receive His Bride and take her back to heaven with Him (e.g., John 14:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and 2) the 2nd Coming, in which Christ comes from heaven with all His saints to establish His kingdom on this present earth and personally reign over it for a thousand years (e.g., Matthew 24:30; Revelation 19:11-16; 20:4-6).

From its inception the idea that the future return of Christ would be comprised of two phases received two principal criticisms.  First, that there was no place in the New Testament that explicitly taught that there remained two future “comings” of Christ, separated in time; thus, such an understanding was based on inference alone.  Second, that this understanding of the return of Christ was a “new” doctrine; since it had never before been taught or believed by Christians of previous generations (neither the Reformers, nor the Church Fathers before them), it was very unlikely to be true.  These two criticisms will each be briefly addressed.

Regarding the first criticism, it is obvious that nowhere in the New Testament is it explicitly asserted that there remain two future “comings” of Christ.  The understanding that there are to be two comings, a Rapture event that is distinct and separated in time from the 2nd Coming proper, is indeed an inference.  Nevertheless, it is a necessary inference!  A rapture event distinct from the 2nd Coming is a necessary inference from all the New Testament passages regarding the return of Christ, some of which reveal He will come for His saints in the air and return with them to heaven (Rapture), others that He will come with His saints from heaven to the earth (2nd Coming).  There must be two phases to this return, separated in time, since all that is said concerning it cannot be fulfilled in a single event.  This is entirely analogous to the Old Testament passages regarding the Coming of Christ.  Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that there would be two Comings of Christ (Messiah).  However, revelation is given of Messiah suffering and dying for the nation (e.g., Psalm 22; Isaiah 53), along with revelation of Messiah setting up His kingdom on earth and reigning over it forever (e.g., Psalm 2; Daniel 2:44; Zechariah 14:9).  These two bodies of revelation could not be fulfilled in a single “Coming”, so from the Old Testament perspective it was a necessary inference that Messiah would come twice [1] (i.e., the 1st Coming and the 2nd Coming proper; since the Rapture exclusively pertains to the Church, it was a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament).

Regarding the second criticism, it is conceded that the notion of a Rapture that is distinct and separated in time from the 2nd Coming was a new understanding that emerged in the 19th century as a result of Dispensational Theology’s emphasis on the use of a literal hermeneutic in prophetic passages of the Bible.  The earlier/classical Dispensationalists, including Darby, Scofield, and Walvoord, were all honest in admitting that Dispensationalism’s doctrine of the Rapture was a new understanding of Scripture not held by the Reformers or Church Fathers [2].  While many today are expending great energy in an attempt to find quotations from early Christian writers that indicate they believed in a Rapture that was distinct from the 2nd Coming, there is no necessity to do so.  Even if a few such genuine quotations are found [3], it will only serve to highlight the truth that Dispensationalism’s doctrine of the Rapture was an extreme, minority view held by virtually no one prior to the modern era.  But this in no way negates the validity of the doctrine.  Remember, the vast majority of Jewish believers failed to properly infer that the Old Testament taught Messiah must come twice, including the disciples of the Lord Himself, for which He rebuked them rather harshly (cf. Luke 24:25-27)!

In summary, Dispensationalism’s doctrine of the Rapture as distinct and separated in time from the 2nd Coming is a necessary inference from Scripture.  The fact that it is an inference in no way relegates it to being a second-class doctrine, nor does it mean that we cannot have full assurance of its certainty.  Furthermore, the fact that this particular doctrinal truth has only been recognized rather late in this present age is not a valid argument against its veracity.  God’s truth has been available on the pages of Scripture from the very moment it was recorded, but as Dr. Hannah notes “it is apparent that doctrinal development has taken place over the centuries and will continue to do so” [4].  Brethren, let’s boldly proclaim the doctrine of the imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., the Rapture) as the blessed hope of the Church (Titus 2:13)!

Endnotes:

[1] Some ancient Jewish rabbis, struggling to reconcile these two bodies of revelation regarding Messiah, postulated that there would be two Messiahs, a Messiah “ben Joseph” who would come to die for the nation, and a Messiah “ben David” who would come to reign over the nation.  Obviously this was not correct, but it nevertheless demonstrates their recognition that not all the revelation given in the Old Testament regarding the Coming of Messiah could be fulfilled in a single event.

[2] Although it is generally conceded by virtually all Church historians that the Church was predominantly Premillennial in eschatology for its first three centuries (until Augustine).

[3] Most such quotations that are offered are of a rather vague character, open to various interpretations.

[4] John Hannah, Our Legacy:  The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 27.