Robert H. Gundry is a New Testament scholar of no small reputation (and, occasionally, no small controversy: see here and here) whose work needs to be reckoned with. I find him curious at times and, frequently, quite helpful. So when I saw that he had published a book in 1973 that is considered by some to be the most stalwart defense of the post-tribulational position, I decided to read it.
The Church and the Tribulation is indeed an important work. Agree with Gundry or not, the depth of scholarship in this work, the seemingly exhaustive and careful consideration of the primary eschatological texts, and Gundry’s consideration of the various arguments and counter-arguments lend this work a certain weight. There is way too much shallow writing and thinking about eschatology in the conservative Christian book market, so works of genuine scholarship ought to be celebrated whether they are for your position or against it. Prior to reading Gundry’s work, I would have said that George Eldon Ladd’s The Blessed Hope was the most important work arguing for post-tribulationism that I have read (I do *not* claim that I have read enough to be able to have an opinion on “the most important work” on this or that position overall). Now I would say Gundry’s book is.
The book is a very detailed look at a very large number of passages as well as, at the end, an overview of the historical development of the pre-tribulational position. But to summarize, let us just say that Gundry does not see a pre-tribulational rapture of the church in the pages of the New Testament and does see a great deal of evidence for the presence of the church on earth during the tribulation. He offers a very interesting look at the whole question of the relationship between Israel and the church and offers a pretty strong biblical pushback against dispensational assumptions on this point (showing, for instance, how certain prophecies spoken over Israel were clearly fulfilled in and by the church). Gundry’s section on the Olivet Discourse is also an interesting pushback against certain dispensationalist assumptions and should be considered. The section on imminence is quite interesting and Gundry argues therein that a close examination of New Testament passages concerning expectation and watchfulness apply consistently to a post-tribulational rapture. Furthermore, he unpacks the phrase “the day of the Lord” and persuasively shows that it cannot include the tribulation and is to be applied to Christ’s return at the end of the tribulation.
That day cannot begin until after the revelation of the Antichrist and the apostasy, after the ministry of Elijah, after the celestial phenomena between the tribulation and the posttribulational advent, in short, not until after the tribulation. Paul’s admonition to be prepared for that day and his explanation that Christians will recognize the approach of that day require a connection between the last generation of the Church and the arrival of the day of the Lord. Hence, the Church will continue on earth throughout the tribulation until the beginning of that day. (Kindle Location 1577)
I think, after a first reading (and I intend to re-read this work sooner rather than later), that this is a sufficient conclusion to reach: if one holds to a pre-tribulational rapture or if one is curious as to the question of the timing of the rapture, Gundry’s book should be read. If, after having read it, you still hold to the pre-tribulational rapture, ok. But you will have engaged a serious and substantive counter-proposal in your reading of Gundry’s book and you will be the better for it.
Highly recommended!
Great article.
Was a pretribber, but saw the light after doing my own study. IMO, best proof of post trib is Paul’s anticipation of both rapture (2 Thes. 2:1, 1 Thes. 4:17) and second coming (2 Thes. 1:7) in his lifetime. Can’t have seven years between them if he expected to be alive for both.
You make a good and valid point, Jim. Thank you.
I do have some issues with the post-tribulation rapture theology with regard to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. In this passage, my understanding the Thessalonian believers received erroneous teaching that they were already in the Day of the Lord. As a result, these believers were troubled, worried, and shaken in mind at the prospect that the Day of the Lord had already begun (2 Thess. 2:2). Here are my questions:
1. If Paul taught a post-tribulation rapture, why would the Thessalonian believers be troubled and shaken in mind by reports that the Day of the Lord had already arrived? They ought to have rejoiced since the arrival of the Day of the Lord would bring deliverance to believers. But rather than rejoicing, they are troubled and shaken in mind.
2. Secondly, if post-tribulationists are correct in their teaching that the Day of the Lord does NOT include the Tribulation but, rather, begins at the end of the great tribulation, then it is inexplicable as to why the Thessalonians would be worried to hear that the Day of the Lord had arrived. According to the post-tribulation rapture view, the Day of the Lord can only begin at the end of the great tribulation. If this is correct, we would expect the Thessalonian believers to rejoice on hearing that the Day of the Lord had arrived since the arrival of the Day of the Lord means the great tribulation has ended which, in turn, means deliverance for believers.
None of this makes any sense if Paul taught a post-tribulation rapture. But if Paul taught a pre-tribulation rapture with the understanding that the Day of the Lord begins with and includes the Tribulation, then it’s easy to understand why the Thessalonian believers were shaken in mind and troubled to hear that the Day of the Lord had already begun. One reason why they were troubled was that they thought they had missed the rapture and that they were then going through the tribulation which is a part of the Day of the Lord (they mistook their present persecutions and trials as evidence of great tribulation which is part of the Day of the Lord).
Paul then writes 2 Thessalonians 2 to reassure them that the Day of the Lord could not have started because the Day of the Lord cannot begin unless two events first take place. These two events must precede the Day of the Lord. In verse 3, Paul referred to these two events as “the apostasia” (whatever that means in Greek) and “the revelation of the antichrist”. These two events will precede the day of the Lord. Paul wasn’t asking the Thessalonians to be on the look out for these two events. He didn’t mean to tell the Thessalonians to watch out for these two events. His point was that the day of the Lord could not have begun because these two events had not yet taken place. So, Paul was basically telling the Thessalonians, “The fact that you have not seen these two events is conclusive prove that the day of the Lord had not begun”.
Notice something very important here: In 2 Thess. 2:3, Paul says “the apostasia” will happen first, followed by the revelation of the antichrist. Thereafter, the Day of the Lord will begin. Take note of the correct order or sequence of events given by Paul in this verse:
“the apostasia” —-> the revelation of the antichrist ——> the Day of the Lord.
From this sequence of events, we can clearly see that once the antichrist is revealed, the next event is the Day of the Lord. But we also know from other Scriptures that once the antichrist is revealed, then Daniel’s 70th week (the 7-year Tribulation period) will begin. This confirms that the Day of the Lord includes the Tribulation. This validates the pre-tribulationists’ argument that the Day of the Lord includes the Tribulation and begins with the Tribulation. Paul confirms this in 2 Thess. 2:3 by saying that the Day of the Lord will come once the antichrist is revealed. (The revelation of the antichrist also triggers the onset of the Tribulation). This conclusively proves that the Day of the Lord begins with the onset of the Tribulation. So, it seems to me that the pre-tribulationists are correct in their definition of the Day of the Lord.
There is one more important observation in 2 Thessalonians 2. In verse 3, Paul lists two events that must occur before the Day of the Lord can begin. He called these two events “the apostasia” (Greek) and “the revelation of the day of the Lord. Then in verses 7-8, he again lists two events that must take place before the antichrist is revealed, and he called these events “the removal of the restrainer” and “the revelation of the antichrist”. We can see a pattern here and I will depict the sequence of events in verse 3 and in verses 8-9 as follows:
In verse 3, the sequence is:
“the apostasia” ——> the revelation of the antichrist ——-> Day of the Lord.
In verse 8-9, the sequence is:
“removal of the restrainer” ——>the revelation of antichrist —–>Day of the Lord.
Now, if we compare the two sequences above, we can easily see that “the apostasia” in verse 3 clearly corresponds to “the removal of the restrainer” in verses 8-9. So, “the apostasia” is equivalent to “the removal of the restrainer”. These two terms mean the same thing. In verse 3, Paul used the Greek term “the apostasia” to describe an important event that must take place before the antichrist can be revealed. Then in verses 8-9, he used the term “the removal of the restrainer” to describe the exact same event that must take place before the antichrist can be revealed.
The question we must answer then is: what is “the apostasia” or “the removal of the restrainer”? As we have seen, these two terms mean the same thing. Let’s begin with “the removal of the restrainer”. What does Paul means by the “restrainer” in verses 8-9? The Holy Spirit in the life of the believers is the restraining force, restraining evil in the world today. And as soon as the church is taken out of this world, there will be no more restraining forces against evil. The restraining force of the Church will be removed and once the Church is removed, this man of sin (the antichrist) will take over using his powers that will be given to him by Satan. And the world will be plunged into darkness such as the world has never seen before. If the restrainer is not the Church or the Holy Spirit, who else/what else can it be? What force is present in the world today, helping to restrain evil? It can only be either the Church or the Holy Spirit. It is most likely the Church filled with the Holy Spirit. This is the restraining force that will need to be taken out of the way before full-blown evil can be unleashed on the world. The removal of this restraining force is the Rapture.
It is noteworthy that post-tribulationists disagree with the view that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers (the Church), but they themselves have never been able to explain what the term “restrainer” means in this passage. In his book “The Church and the Tribulation”, Robert Gundry, a prominent post-tribulationist, concludes that the meaning of “the restrainer” is unknown to anyone. He disagrees with the only plausible explanation of the term, yet he himself provides no alternative explanation.
The next question is: what is the meaning of the Greek “apostasia”? Many modern Bibles have translated this term as “falling away” implying a religious falling away from the faith, but it seems to me that this translation is incorrect and misleading. The fact is, the Greek word “apostasia” means “departure” or “withdrawal”. This could either be departure from the faith (a religious apostasy) or a spatial departure (a physical withdrawal from a place). It is the context of a passage that determines which meaning (religious or spatial departure) is implied. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 favors a spatial (physical) departure since the theme of Paul’s message in this passage is “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him” (2 Thess. 2:1). Thus, “the apostasia” in this passage may well refer to the physical departure of the Church (the Rapture) which would confirm that “the apostasia” in verse 3 is equivalent to “the removal of the restrainer” in verses 8-9. Thus Paul’s argument both in verse 3 and in verses 8-9 is basically that the Church must be raptured and taken out of the way before the antichrist can be revealed and before the Day of the Lord can begin.
It is noteworthy that the earliest Bible translations rendered the Greek term “apostasia” as “departure” or “departing” rather than “falling away”. Jerome translated the Greek New Testament into Latin in the 4th century (the Latin Vulgate). He used the Latin word discessio, meaning “departure”, for the Greek word “apostasia”. Furthermore, the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun apostasia as either “departure” or “departing.” They include the Wycliffe Bible (1384), the Tyndale Bible (1526), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Cranmer Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1540), the Beeches Bible (1576) and the Geneva Bible (1608). So, all of the above early English translations of the Bible rendered this word as “departure” or “departing” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. There are online versions of these Bibles that you can easily look up to confirm this. For example, the 1587 Geneva Bible renders this 2 Thess. 2:3 as follows (with archaic English): “Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition…”
In verse 3, Paul says the apostasia (the departure) has to happen before the Antichrist is revealed. Then in verses 6-8 again, he says “the restrainer” has to be removed before the Antichrist can be revealed. In verse 3, the condition that needs to be fulfilled for the Antichrist to be revealed is the “departure” (apostasia) whereas in verse 6-8, the condition that needs to be fulfilled for the Antichrist to be revealed is the “removal of the restrainer”. Both terms — “the apostasia (departure) and the “removal of the restrainer” — refer to the Rapture of the Church. The Rapture of the Church is the event that must take place before the antichrist can be revealed. And once the antichrist is revealed, the Day of the Lord will begin.
In the end, the exegesis of this passage from the pretribulation rapture perspective makes a lot more sense to me that the post-tribulationist interpretation.
Many blessings.
Hey Vick! Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. Wyman