The Terminus A Quo of The Day of the Lord: The Deciding Argument for Pretribulationism

By Jerry M. Hullinger

[Professor of Bible, Piedmont International University, Winston–Salem, North Carolina]

The Importance Of The Day Of The Lord

The biblical phrase “Day of Yahweh” occupies a peerless place of importance in both the Old and New Testaments. Cerny suggests, “The doctrine of the Day of Yahweh is not only the most interesting but perhaps also the most important of all the teachings of the Hebrew prophets. This is rather an understatement than an exaggeration.”[1] Consequently, there are a number of reasons that demonstrate the merit for studying this key phrase. First, it is a major strand of prophecy running throughout the OT. The Hebrew phrase יוֹם יהוה appears numerous times in the OT.[2] Furthermore, other phrases such as “that day,” “the day,” “the great day,” and the “great and terrible day” are scattered throughout the prophets, in addition to hundreds of passages referring to events within that time period.[3]

A second reason that shows the importance of this study is the fact that the phrase “Day of the Lord” is found in four New Testament passages.[4] Since the OT provides the basis for understanding the use of this phrase in the NT, it is paramount that the phrase be understood in the interpretation of both Testaments. Beecher noted the importance of this over a century ago when he wrote:

All doctrines in regard to the millennium, the second coming of Christ, and the final judgment depend greatly on the passages in the New Testament that use the formulas, “the day of the Lord” …. The meaning of these passages is, in turn, greatly dependent on the relations that exist, both in ideas and in phraseology, between them and the texts of the Old Testament that speak of the “day of the Lord,” that is, “the day of Jehovah.”

Necessarily, the study of these places in the OT will be profitable, both in itself and for the light it throws on New Testament eschatology.[5]

A final reason for importance, and the focus of this study, deals with the connection that exists between the Day of the Lord and the timing of the rapture. While the doctrine of the rapture does not rise to the level of other major Christian doctrines, it is a vital one in terms of hermeneutics, theological systems, Christian living, and understanding God’s program for the future.[6] As one engages in discussion of the truth of the rapture, the impression is received that even if this is accepted as a biblical doctrine, the timing of the event is strictly inferential. This article seeks to challenge that mindset by presenting the deciding argument for pretribulationism, namely, the terminus a quo of the Day of the Lord.[7]

The Major Textual Data In The Prophets

In light of the incredible number of passages that deal with this subject, it is not possible to examine every text that speaks of the Day of the Lord. Therefore, only some central, representative passages will be examined.[8] The purpose of this section is merely to observe the context and make a number of brief observations concerning those passages where the phrase “Day of the Lord” appears as a point of reference for later discussion.

Isaiah (739–681 B.C.) [9]

Isaiah 2:12

This verse includes the first mention of the Day of the Lord in the prophecy of Isaiah. In 2:1–5, Isaiah has affirmed the future restoration of Judah and Jerusalem as he describes some of the characteristics of the Millennial Kingdom. These include the establishment of God’s house (2:2a), the attraction of the nations to Jerusalem (2:2b-3a), the proclamation of the Law from Jerusalem, and the peace that shall reign among the nations (2:4). Then in 2:6–11, he notes that Judah had taken on the values of the pagans around them, and in 2:11–22, the consequent judgment that these values would bring. It is in this judgment context where Isaiah describes the Day of the Lord. From this passage the following characteristics are seen about the Day of the Lord:

1. It will be a time when the proud will be humbled (2:11, 12, 17).
2. It will be a time when the Lord will be exalted (2:10, 11, 17, 19, 21).
3. It will be a time of fear and hiding (2:10, 19, 21).
4. It will be a time when the Lord will shake the earth (2:19, 21).
5. It will be a time of judgment against Israel (2:6).

It appears that the judgment referred to here is eschatological,[10] instead of historical judgment at the hands of Assyria and Babylon. This is so because of the eschatological emphasis of 2:1–5[11] and the cosmic disturbances as noted above.[12] After a thorough discussion of the passage from different theological perspectives, Sailhamer is on target when he concludes:

Historically, it is hard to understand Israel’s prophets any other way than that they longed for a physical, that is, earthly, reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy .... Their reference looked far beyond any temporal fulfillment within Israel’s own immediate history. If our goal is to describe the reference of Isaiah’s visions as he would have understood them, we can only hope to do so by paying close attention to the sense of those visions as they are given us in the book of Isaiah. That sense, as we have suggested in this chapter, fits best in the context of an earthly reign of Christ in Jerusalem as a precursor to the eternal state.[13]

Isaiah 13:6–16

The next reference to the Day of the Lord in Isaiah is in chapter 13. In this section Isaiah delivers an oracle of judgment against Babylon, and in it additional information is gleaned concerning the Day of the Lord:

1. It is from God Himself (13:6, 11, 12, 13).
2. It is a time of destruction, wrath, and anger (13:6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16).
3. It is directed against sinners (13:9, 11).
4. The sun, moon, and stars will be darkened (13:10).
5. God will shake the earth (13:13).
6. Men will be filled with fear (13:7, 8, 14).
7. A specific Gentile nation is involved (13:1, 19).

Unlike the previous Isaiah passage, there seems to be a near eschatological event in view as well as a far eschatological event. It appears that 13:1–8 refers to the relatively near event fulfilled by Babylon from 605–586 BC.[14] However, the description in 13:9–16 speaks of an event in the far future.[15] This is apparent from the cosmic disturbances as well as the universality of judgment mentioned (13:11). This interplay between near and far eschatology is explained by Ladd where:

These two visitations, the near and the far, or, as we may for convenience call them, the historical and the eschatological, are not differentiated in time. In fact, sometimes the two blend together as though they were one day….This historical Day of the Lord is painted against the backdrop of the eschatological Day of the Lord.[16]

It should be further noted that this near and far interplay in the prophets is not an unusual phenomenon and is commonly referred to as “prophetic telescoping.” Henry Virkler explains this prophetic device thusly: “Biblical prophecy may leap from one prominent peak in predictive topography to another, without notice of the valley between.”[17] Examples of this can be seen most notably when the prophets spoke of the first and second comings of Christ (e.g. Isa 9:6; 61:1–2; Zech 9:9–10). As McClain observes, “The Oriental was interested in the next important event, not in the time which might intervene.”[18] Even amillennialists recognize this principle. For example, Lenski in commenting on Acts 3:17, states, “It must be well understood that the prophets always viewed the two comings of Christ together without having the interval between the two revealed to them.”[19] So in principle, the same thing is happening in these Day of the Lord prophecies.

Jeremiah (626–582 BC)

Jeremiah 46:1–12

In this text the prophet is delivering a message of judgment against Egypt. He prophesied that Egypt would be ravaged by the Babylonians. This defeat is called by Jeremiah “the day of the Lord God of hosts” (46:10). The following observations are made:

1. It is a time of judgment against a specific Gentile nation (46:1–2).
2. It is a time of God’s vengeance (46:10).
3. It is a time of slaughter of God’s enemies (46:10).

Because this prophecy was made against a specific nation, and because there are no judgments necessitating the end of the age, it is concluded that this was a day of the Lord fulfilled in 605 BC when Nebuchadnezzar registered a major victory against the Egyptians.[20]

Ezekiel (593–570 BC)

Ezekiel 13:5

Ezekiel wrote in chapters 12–19 concerning the certainty of judgment to come on Israel. The third message delivered by Ezekiel regarding this judgment is found in chapter 13where he denounces the false prophets and prophetesses who were contributing to Israel’s sense of false security. Here it is observed that

1. The judgment is from the Lord (13:8, 9).
2. The judgment is against the false prophets of Israel (13:3).
3. The judgment would involve the elements of nature (13:11, 13).

In this first Ezekiel passage it seems best to understand the Day of the Lord as a reference to the beginning of Judah’s deportation in 605 BC to Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BC.[21]

Ezekiel 30:3

The next reference in Ezekiel to the Day of the Lord is found in 30:3. In this section the prophet is writing concerning the demise of Egypt and her allies at the hands of Babylon and refers to it as a “day of the Lord.” Ezekiel refers to this day as:

1. A time of woe, howling, and distress (30:2).
2. A cloudy day (30:3).
3. A time of death, pain, and desolation (30:4, 5, 7).

As with the first Ezekiel passage, this one seems to refer to a near eschatological event, namely the destruction of Egypt (30:4, 6, 8, 10).

Joel (835 BC) [22]

The Day of the Lord is mentioned five times in the book of Joel and thus becomes a locus classicus for a study of the subject. The difficulty as to whether to take the locust plague as literal or figurative in these chapters is well known. One of the most satisfying options is what H. Hosch described as a historical /near, eschatological/far view.[23] This position states that the locusts of chapter 1 are real locusts. A near future invasion under the locust figure referring to either the Assyrians or Babylonians is in view in 2:1–17. Finally, 2:18–27 serves as a transition to far eschatology in 2:28–3:21. Thus the locust plague that destroyed the Judean countryside is used by Joel to picture near and far judgment to be brought by God. A number of observations can be made from Joel’s treatment of the Day of the Lord.

Joel 1–The Locust Invasion

The following characteristics are found in this chapter.

1. It is destruction from the Almighty (1:15).
2. It will bring famine and drought which will affect men and animals (1:10–12; 16–20).
3. It will involve an invasion of Israel by a powerful army (1:6).

Joel 2:1–17—Near Eschatology—The Assyrian And/Or Babylonian Invasion

Some additional features to the Day of the Lord are added in the second chapter.

1. It will be from the Almighty (2:1–4).
2. It will involve the land of Israel (2:1).
3. It is great, terrible, dark, and gloomy (2:2–11).
4. It will involve an invasion of Israel by a powerful army (2:2–9).
5. The earth will quake, and the heavenly bodies will be affected (2:10).

Joel 2:28–3:21— Far Eschatology

The final section of Joel continues the same characteristics as previous, but since the judgment phase is complete, adds a description of the blessedness of Messiah’s kingdom

1. The Spirit will be poured out (2:28–29).
2. The earth will quake, and the heavenly bodies will be affected (2:30–31).
3. The nations will be judged in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (3:2, 14).
4. The godless will be destroyed (3:13).
5. The Messiah will reign and the land will be blessed (3:18).

Amos 5:18, 20 (755 BC)

Amos wrote his prophecy to the Northern Kingdom when it was at a tremendous height in power and prosperity (cf. 3:15; 5:11; 6:1–6; 8:5). Unfortunately, this success brought with it social injustice (2:6–7; 5:7; 6:12; 8:4–6), immorality (2:7), and abominable worship (5:21–23). Evidently, the people mistakenly believed that the Lord was with them (5:14) and thus longed for the Day of the Lord (5:18a). Amos, however, decried their sins and warned them that the Day of the Lord held judgment for the nation (5:18b).[24] Amos’s description of this time includes the following:

1. It will fall on Israel (5:1).
2. It will destroy the sinful of the nation (9:1–10).
3. It is a time of judgment from the Lord (5:17).
4. It is a day of darkness with no light (5:18, 20).
5. It is a time of woe (5:16).
6. It will be a time of restoration and blessing (9:11–15).

While the passage concerning restoration is clearly far eschatological (9:11–15), it is probably best to take the passage in 5:18–20 as a reference to the fall of Samaria in 722 BC (cf. 2 Kings 17).[25]

Obadiah (848–841 BC)

Obadiah’s message is primarily one of doom and judgment against Israel’s enemy Edom. The question of interest in Obadiah concerning this study is whether the Day of the Lord passage in 15–21 relates to the near or far future. Some, such as Henderson, say that this was fulfilled in the Babylonian conquest of Idumea.[26] Kaiser suggests a fulfillment in the Maccabean period.[27] On the other hand, Allen posits that the scope of the reference simply goes beyond 587 BC. He writes, “He is still much concerned with Edom … but behind the fate of the nations … stands the fall of Jerusalem in 587.”[28] Others like Feinberg relate the fall of Edom to the time just before the establishment of the millennium.[29]

It is likely contextually best to regard 1–14 as a near future reference to the destruction of Edom by Nebuchadnezzar. Yet the language used in the rest of the book seems to point to the far future time of the Kingdom age. Mayhue suggests five supports for this view:[30] (1) 1–14 deal with Edom followed by an abrupt shift in 15–16 dealing with all nations, (2) Edom becomes a pattern for future nations (16), (3) the destruction of the nations is an eschatological event, (4) Israel’s full restoration (17–21) will occur in the millennium, and 5) it is stated that the kingdom will be the Lord’s (21). Having done with this, it can briefly be observed how Obadiah describes the Day of the Lord.

1. It will come upon Edom (1–14).
2. It will come upon all nations (15).
3. Nations will be judged by their treatment of Israel 15–16.
4. Israel will be delivered, returned to the land, and see the establishment of the kingdom (17–21).

Zephaniah 1:7, 14 (630 BC)

The theme of Zephaniah’s prophecy is the judgment to come on Judah for her disobedience. However, it is still revealed that a remnant would be preserved in keeping with God’s faithfulness to the Covenant. The question which surfaces is how to relate the universality of judgment in 1:1–3 with the specific judgment on Judah by Babylon. Further, how does this relate to the future judgment of all nations pictured in 3:8 and the future restoration of Israel in 3:9–20? Again, it needs to be remembered, as in the other prophecies, that the prophets often wove together a near eschatological strand with a far eschatological strand into one whole Hannah explained that “Zephaniah saw Judah’s destruction and universal judgment as two parts of one grand event, the day of the Lord.”[31] Likewise, Kaiser corroborated by noting that they “combined in one picture what history split into different times and events …. Hence the day of the Lord ran throughout the history of the kingdom of God so that it occurred in each particular judgment as evidence of its complete fulfillment.”[32]

The following facts are observed about Zephaniah’s contribution about the Day of the Lord:

1. It is judgment from the Lord (1:1–4).
2. It is judgment on Judah (1:4).
3. It is judgment on all nations (3:8).
4. It is judgment on the rich, leaders, mighty, hardened, and indifferent (1:6–12).
5. The ungodly will perish: 1:17–18
6. Idolatry will cease (1:4–5).
7. It is characterized by wrath, trouble, distress, desolation, darkness, gloominess, and clouds (1:15–17).
8. It will involve blessing and restoration for Israel (3:9–18).

Zechariah 14:1 (520 BC)

Since Zechariah was a post-exilic prophet writing after the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments, his prophecy concerning the Day of the Lord has a far eschatological reference. Some, such as Leupold,[33] suggests that the prophecy of chapter 14 is figurative, describing NT times. However, if a normal hermeneutic is applied to this chapter, the prophecy has not come close to being fulfilled. From Zechariah’s use of the Day of the Lord, the following observations can be made:

1. Israel will be plundered by Gentile nations (4:1)
2. The Lord will fight against these armies (4:2)
3. The Messiah will return to the Mt. of Olives (14:4a)
4. There will be an earthquake (14:4b)
5. It will be an eternal day (14:7)
6. There will be a sufficient water supply (14:8)
7. The Lord will be king over a peaceful Jerusalem (14:9–11)
8. Israel’s enemies will be destroyed (14:12–15)
9. The kingdom will be one of worship and holiness (14:16–21)

Malachi 4:5 (435 BC)

The final use of the phrase “Day of the Lord” is found in Malachi 4:5. Like many of the other prophets, Malachi is writing to Israel to enjoin them to faithfulness to the covenant in order to enjoy its blessings. The phrase occurs at the very end of the book in which Malachi speaks of the coming of Elijah before the Day of the Lord. It is not within the scope of this study to discuss the problems concerning Elijah other than to note that Malachi pictured the Day of the Lord in 4:1–5 as a time of judgment, desolation, and pain.

Conclusion

The purpose of this first major section has been to briefly survey those passages where the phrase “day of the Lord” appears. This was not meant to solve all of the problems in these texts but simply to supply enough data in order to deal intelligently with the questions raised in the subsequent sections regarding the Day of the Lord and the Rapture.

Definitions Of The Day Of The Lord

Having made a survey of the key texts in the preceding section, it is interesting to note the various views on what exactly the Day of the Lord is. These views have been grouped into headings designated by the writer.[34]

#1 Future Judgment At Second Advent View

This view sees the Day of the Lord as a purely eschatological event consisting of judgment only to take place at the second advent of Christ. In many cases, proponents of this view substitute the Day of the Lord for the coming of Christ. For example, B. B. Warfield spoke of the advent freely as the Day of the Lord, a term which from Joel’s time on has stood for a synonym of the final judgment.[35] Likewise, Berkhof stated that “the terms parousia and Day of the Lord are used interchangeably.”[36] Another advocate of this position is L. Cerny who wrote:

We may say that the Day of Yahweh is the decreed, dark, dreadful, destructive and dangerous day .… this term is always in our literary documents applied to the final and universal judgment, and not to any less decisive intervention of God in the course of human history.”[37]

From this view should be noted three things: (1) the term is applied to eschatological events, not historical; (2) the event takes place at the second advent; and (3) the event includes judgment but not blessing.

Though it is difficult to determine what is included in their entire scheme of the Day of the Lord, Fausset,[38] Alford,[39] Milligan,[40] and Oden[41] appear to associate it strongly with the parousia as well. Whether these authors would admit to any historical aspects of the Day of the Lord is not known to the writer.[42]

#2 Historical/Future Judgment At Second Advent View

Those who espouse this view hold essentially the same position as those mentioned in the previous one. The difference is that they see the judgments in history as aspects of the Day of the Lord as well as the great judgment still in the future. Thus “days of the Lord” occurred in historical circumstances and the “day of the Lord” will take place at the close of the tribulation period at the second advent, and another Day of the Lord at the close of the millennium. Of this view, Mayhue writes:

The Day of the Lord is a biblical phrase used by God’s prophets to describe either the immediate future or the ultimate eschatological consummation …. I would also suggest that the day of the Lord will occur only at the end of the tribulation period, not throughout its duration, and that the Day of the Lord will occur only at the end of the millennium, not throughout its duration.[43]

Keil, speaking of the Day of the Lord and the judgment of God, averred that history is “a continuous judgment, which will conclude at the end of this course of the world with a great and universal act of judgment.”[44] In a similar strain, Calvin observed concerning this event that “he calls it the day of Jehovah, because in that day God would stretch forth his hand to execute judgment . . . . God calls it His own day, when he will openly shine forth and appear as the judge of the world.”[45] In summarizing this view, four points should be noted: (1) it includes historical judgments, (2) it includes eschatological judgments, (3) it excludes eschatological blessing, and (4) it excludes the tribulation period.

#3 Historical Judgment And Future Judgment/Blessing At Second Advent View

This view is identical to the preceding except for the fact that in the future aspect, it says that the Day of the Lord includes the judgments at the second advent plus the blessings of the millennium. Gaebelein stated that the “day of Jehovah is that lengthened period of time beginning with the return of the Lord in glory, and ending with the purgation of the heavens and earth by fire preparatory to the new heavens and new earth.”[46] Likewise Chafer wrote that this is “the lengthened period of a thousand years that begins, generally speaking with the second advent of Christ and the judgments connected therewith, and ends with the passing of the present heaven and the present earth …. The Day of the Lord is characterized by the reign of Christ over Israel.”[47]

Similarly, Smith expresses the same view in that “when God wipes out a nation for its sin, the Day of the Lord happens for that group of people .... At the end of human history the final Day of the Lord will take place when God defeats all enemies, sets up his glorious kingdom, and reigns over this world as king.”[48]

A final statement of this view is made by John Freeman who says that the Day of the Lord “begins at the second coming and will include the final judgment …. It will include the millennial judgment and culminate in the new heavens and the new earth.”[49]

This is also the position of G. N. H. Peters,[50] H. C. Thiessen,[51] and The Scofield Reference Bible.[52]

In summarizing this position, several points are noteworthy: (1) the future aspect is emphasized almost to the exclusion of the historical, (2) the period begins with the premillennial advent, and (3) the period includes both judgment and blessing.

#4 Historical Judgment, Future Judgment At Tribulation Period, And Blessing At Millennium View

There are two basic differences between this view and the preceding. First, this view gives more of an emphasis to the historical aspects of the Day of the Lord. And second, this position sees the future aspect beginning with the tribulation rather than with the second advent. It is the position of the writer that this view best squares with the textual data as found in the previous chapter.

By way of introduction a brief description needs to be given concerning the word “day.” Most often the word יום is used to specify a unit of time such as the hours of daylight (Gen 1:5, 16; Josh 6:15; Isa 27:3), or a legal or civil day (Lev 23:32).[53] The word is also used to speak of an unspecified period of time (Isa 49:8; 2 Cor 6:2). Such is the case with the Day of the Lord. Each time the phrase appears, it must be examined in its context to determine its duration. Cerny offered this helpful comment:

Time is not only actually closely associated with all of the contents by which it is filled, but that it is identical with them, that they are its very “substance” because for the Hebrew mind time does not exist as an empty “form or frame” …. When mention is made of the day of Jerusalem, Jezreel or Midian, then it applies to events of decisive importance in their lives, just as the Day of Yahweh is the violent actions, in which Yahweh more particularly manifests himself.[54]

In a similar statement, G. A. Gay remarks that “in Semitic thought it was customary to designate events of importance with the term day.”[55] With this in mind, one could say that “day” with reference to Yahweh was a concept used to interpret momentous events in which Yahweh was present in the world through his ongoing activities.[56] As Wolff suggested, “day does not mean a definite extent of time, but rather a definite event in time whose nature is determined by the associated personal name.”[57] Or more simply, the Day of Yahweh is a time which belongs to him in which he intervenes into human history. Thus, as Allen noted, “In … the prophetic teaching handed down …. the Day of Yahweh had a double, even a triple function.”[58] With this as a background, it can now be examined how this is accomplished.

Historical Judgment

It should be clear from the survey of texts that there were “days of the Lord” fulfilled in history. It was suggested that these included:

1. judgment on God’s enemies. Babylon was judged at the hands of the Assyrians (Isa 13:6, 9); Egypt was judged at the hands of the Babylonians (Jer 46:10; Ezek 30:2–4); Edom was judged at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (Isa 34:8–9; Obad 1–14), and
2. judgment on God’s people. Not only did the Day of the Lord signify a judgment on God’s enemies, but at time on his people as well. Judah was invaded by Assyria (Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11); Israel was deported by Assyria (Amos 5:18, 20); and Judah was judged using the Babylonians (Ezek 13:5; Zeph 1:4–13).

It can be seen that the Day of the Lord often included historical events from a current perspective, or near eschatological events when they were prophesied. These involved the judgment of Israel herself as well as judgments on her enemies.

Future Judgment

A great amount of the revelation concerning the Day of the Lord also had a reference to far eschatological judgment. If one follows normal interpretation, the fulfillment of the judgment has not taken place.[59] Some examples include (1) judgment on the nations. It is revealed that there is a coming day of the Lord in which the nations will be judged (Obad 15–16; Isa 13:9, 11; Zeph. 3:8; Zech 14. 2–3), (2) judgment on Israel. It is also seen that the nation of Israel will receive judgment (Zech 14:2; Amos 9:9, 10), and (3) judgment and nature. It should also be remembered that this future judgment will be one of terror and agony. In addition, at this time cosmic changes and earthquakes will temporarily occur. (Joel 2:30–31; Isa 2:19, 21).

It is concluded that the prophets wove together aspects of near and far judgment. It is further seen that the prophets did not regard the Day of the Lord as a once and for all event. R. G. Gruenler put it in these words:

The Lord will act in a might way to judge evil and redeem his people … which we may designate F1 (Future 1) and F2 (Future 2) respectively. In prophetic poetry the two themes are repeated and interwoven as highly charged eschatological warnings and promises that often refer to historical events just past or soon to come, as well as to the long-range messianic age.[60]

Also relating the historical day of the Lord to the future day of the Lord, Kaiser explains: “that final time would be climactic and the sum of all the rest. Though the events of their own times fitted the pattern of God’s future judgment, that final day was nevertheless immeasurably larger and more permanent in its salvific and judgmental effects.”[61] So, these “days of the Lord” in history are foretastes or trailers of the time in the future of climactic, decisive judgment.[62]

Future Blessing In The Millennial Kingdom

Not only does this view admit to historical and future judgment, but it also insists on future blessing unlike the first two views. Working from the analogy of a solar day which extended from sunset to sunset (Lev 23:32), McClain suggests that similarly the Day of the Lord will be a period composed of both darkness and light.[63] Feinberg concurs when he writes that this will be a time “of the rule of the Messiah of Israel over them in Jerusalem on the throne of David.”[64] Walvoord agrees when he states, “The significant truth revealed here is that the day of the Lord which first inflicts terrible judgments ends with an extended period of blessing on Israel, which will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom … a time of special divine blessing.”[65]

When the Day of the Lord passages are studied, this view seems to hold up. This is demonstrated in a number of passages (e. g., Isa 2:1–4; Joel 2:32; Amos 9:11–15; Obad 17–21; Zeph 3:9–20; Zech 14:9–21). They occur in the same context as the judgment aspect of the Day of the Lord and include restoration of Israel, the establishment of the kingdom, the blessing of the land, etc. For instance, when one reads “in that day the mountains shall drop with new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk …. and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the Lord (Joel 3:18), the natural question is “what day?” The answer should be found in the context. t is there discovered that the Day of the Lord is mentioned in 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14. It is logical to conclude then that the “day” to which Joel is referring is the same “day” he has been talking about throughout his entire prophecy. This same formula is seen in Amos 9:11, Jeremiah 30:8, Hosea 2:18, and Zephaniah 3:11. Based on these observations, Erich Saur writes, “It is clear that he [Joel] connects the term day of the Lord not with the gloomy time of judgment only, but also, and as concerns the length of the period, even chiefly with the glorious time of the visible kingdom of God.”[66] In the same manner, Colin Brown observes from the Amos passage that “Amos’ vision of the day oscillates between battles, natural disasters and supernatural calamities, but he ends on a note of hope.”[67] And finally, Allen remarks, “the Day of Yahweh thus reaches a climax in the fulfillment of covenant blessing of the penitent people in the land.”[68] Thus, this period belonging to Yahweh not only displays his wrath, but his mercy and grace as well.[69]

Beginning At The Tribulation

Among those who believe in a literal tribulation yet to come, the timing of the period is one of the key areas of debate when it comes to the subject of the Day of the Lord. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state when the Day begins. However, when all of the references in both Testaments which speak of the tribulation are examined, it appears that the Day of the Lord will include that seven–year period. The purpose of the following survey is to see how passages throughout the Bible concerning the tribulation compare to those already surveyed in which use the phrase “day of the Lord,” thus showing this to be at least a reasonable inference.

Revelation 6–19

Event(s)	Old Testament “Day of the Lord”	Revelation 6–19
earthquakes/cosmic	Isaiah 2:19, 21; Joel 2:30	6:12–14
men hiding	Isaiah 2:10, 19	6:15
wrath	Isaiah 13:6, 9, 11; Zephaniah 1:15	6:17
trees and grass burned	Zephaniah 1:15	8:7
woe	Ezekiel 30:2; Joel 2:1–2	8:13
hail	Ezekiel 13:11, 13	8:7
Israel persecuted	Isaiah 2:6; Zechariah 14:1–2	12:6, 16, 17; 13:7
proud humbled	Isaiah 2:11, 12	6:15
darkness and pain	Joel 2:31; Amos 5:18, 20	16:2, 8–10
wrath on nations	Isaiah 13:9, 11; Obadiah 15, 16; Zephaniah 1:15	6:15–17; 11:18

It can be seen from this brief comparison that there is a great deal of similarity between the judgments of the Day of the Lord and those of the tribulation period in Revelation 6–19. It is doubtful that these refer to two separate events or that these could all be restricted to the end of the tribulation.

Other Old Testament References

There are hundreds of OT passages which have an eye to the future tribulation period. By examining a handful of them, the general teaching can be seen. It is said to be a time of devouring, desolation, and burning (Isa 24:1, 3, 6); a time of earthquakes and punishment (Isa 24:19–21); a time of indignation (Isa 26:20, 21); a time of vengeance and recompense (Isa 34:8); a time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer 30:7); a time of desolations (Dan 9:26); a time of seven years (Dan 9:27); a time of unparalleled tribulation (Dan 12:1); and a time of fierce judgment on the wicked (Mal 4:1). These too, appear to refer to the period of the Day of the Lord.

The Olivet Discourse

Moreover, there are also a number of descriptions in the Olivet Discourse concerning the tribulation which parallel with those of the Day of the Lord. These include a time of unprecedented tribulation (Matt 24:21); a time of unprecedented turmoil (Matt 24:6, 7); a lack of peace (Matt 24:1–7); a time of famine (Matt 24:7); a time of death (Matt 24:7–8); and a time of persecution for Israel (Matt 24:9). These characteristics are in keeping with Day of the Lord texts, Revelation 6–19, other OT references, and the Olivet Discourse.

Key New Testament Texts

Up to this point, the texts provided show the reasonableness of holding that the Day of the Lord includes the tribulation period; however, it must be admitted that they do not prove it. There are, though, some key passages in the NT which further strengthen this position. The first is Matthew 24:6, 7, 21 (cf. Dan 12:1). These verses state that the tribulation is a period of unique and unparalleled wrath. This being the case, it is difficult to imagine that the OT foreshadowing of the future Day of the Lord would not include this period. This is further confirmed by the fact that Christ said that even in the future the trouble of the tribulation would not be equaled. This would include the judgment to be poured out at the second advent.[70] Therefore, it is probably best to view the whole period of unprecedented judgment included in the concept of the Day of the Lord.[71]

The second NT text is Matthew 24:15/2 Thessalonians 2:3/Daniel 9:27. It is seen from Daniel 9:27 that the seventieth week (seven years) of Daniel begins with the signing of a covenant between the Antichrist and Israel. In the midst of the week (3 ½ years), he breaks this covenant (cf., 2 Thess. 2:4).[72] In Matthew 24:4–31, Christ lays out for the disciples the program of Daniel’s seventieth week (the tribulation). In this discourse, Christ cites Daniel’s prophecy regarding the breaking of the covenant as the middle of the tribulation period (Matt 24:15), and that this event would mark a time of unprecedented trouble (Matt 24:21). Thus, the tribulation begins with the signing of the covenant, and the middle is marked by the breaking of that covenant. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul confirmed that the Day of the Lord comes when the son of perdition is revealed (the beginning of the tribulation, to be followed by the abomination of desolation (2 Thess 2:3).

In summary, Daniel marks the beginning of the tribulation as the signing of a covenant between Israel and the antichrist. Likewise, Paul equates the beginning of the Day of the Lord with the revelation of the antichrist. Then, Daniel and Jesus mark the middle of the tribulation by the breaking of that same covenant.

The third text is 1 Thessalonians 5:2–3. There are two points to be observed from this passage. The first is the fact that Paul says the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Since the second coming is preceded by signs (Matt 24–25), if the Day of the Lord came at this time, it would not be unexpected as a thief. Thus, the time which best describes this beginning of the Day of the Lord would be the beginning of the tribulation rather than the end. The second point is that Paul says the Day of the Lord comes at a time when there is peace and safety. The end of the tribulation could hardly be said to be a time of peace and safety, for at the end of the tribulation all nations will surround Palestine (Zech 12:3; 14:2; Rev 16:14). Therefore, the feeling of peace and safety would fit better with the beginning of the tribulation (cf. Ezek 38:11) especially due to the fact that the seventieth week begins with a covenant of peace.

Paul is therefore communicating here that the start of the Day of the Lord is a signless event. This is contrary to the post-tribulational view since they hold that the Day of the Lord is preceded by signs. This would not be the case if the Day of the Lord took place well into the tribulation period. For the church to be delivered from the period (1 Thess 5:9) would require a deliverance before it starts, not during or after. It is the unbeliever, not the believer, who will be surprised at the onset of the Day of the Lord. Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2, Blaising stated well that “believers will experience deliverance by means of the rapture, and unbelievers will be as if they are caught in a trap with the unfolding consequences of the day of the Lord event-complex.”[73]

Conclusion

The view which best fits the cumulative, biblical data is the “historical judgment, future judgment at Tribulation period and blessing at Millennium view” (view #4; see chart below). So it is seen that the Day of the Lord is a time of divine intervention into the affairs of men. This phenomenon has taken place historically, which is but a picture of that future intervention of judgment beginning at the Tribulation. The “light” or blessing aspect of the Day will be experienced during the Kingdom age after Israel has been brought to repentance in keeping with the “unconditional” nature of the OT promises.[74]

View	Historical Judgment	Future Judgment	Begins at Start of the Tribulation period	At/includes the Second Advent	Includes the Kingdom Age[75]
#1		X		X
#2	X	X		X
#3	X	X		X	X
#4	X	X	X	X	X

The Terminus A Quo Of The Day Of The Lord In Relation To The Rapture

It has been proposed and validated thus far that the Day of the Lord, in addition to having historical expressions throughout the OT era, will overtake the world at the onset of the tribulation and will extend through the kingdom age. This view is illustrated below.[76]

HISTORIC DAYS OF THE LORD
Judgment on Babylon	Judgment on Edom	Judgment on Israel	Judgment on Assyria	Judgment on Judah

FUTURE DAY OF THE LORD
Darkness		Light
Terminus a quo: Begins at the inception of Tribulation	→	Terminus ad quem: Concludes at the end of the Kingdom age

 1 Thessalonians 1:10

In 1 Thessalonians 1:2–10 Paul gives three reasons he is thankful for the Thessalonian believers. The purpose of this thanksgiving is to encourage them to stand fast in the persecution they are facing. The third reason he gives for his thankfulness is the positive reports he has heard concerning them (8–10). Part of the good report the apostle had received about the Thessalonians is found in 1:10: “and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (ESV). There are four brief, but important, observations to make on this verse. First, the present active infinitive “wait” (ἀναμένειν) is used only here[77] in the NT and carries the idea of “wait for, expect,”[78] “to remain in a place and/or state, with expectancy concerning a future event—‘to await, to wait for,’”[79] or “to wait expectantly.”[80] It should be observed that the verb is not merely a bland waiting, but involves patience and expectancy.[81] This verse rings loudly in concert with the many NT references which teach imminency.[82] In the ongoing debate between pretribulationists and posttribulationists this is a crucial point.[83] For the former the rapture is imminent, but for the latter the rapture cannot be imminent since there are signs which occur before the second coming. The question regarding ἀναμένειν therefore is: were the Thessalonians eagerly awaiting the “any moment” rapture of the church or were they eagerly awaiting something which could not take place until other events occurred first? Theoretically, one could argue for either. However, the cumulative impact of the entire verse and what Paul will say later in the letter must be the determinative factor.

The second important observation from 1:10 has to do with the preposition ἐκ in the phrase “from the wrath to come.”[84]

Leading post-tribulational scholar Robert Gundry is insistent that ἐκ must carry the sense that the Christian will be kept through the tribulation only to emerge out of the period before the divine wrath engulfs the world. In other words, the preposition means “out from within.”[85] In commenting on τηρέω ἐκ in Revelation 3:10, Gundry writes that “ἐκ lays all the emphasis on emergence, in this verse on the final, victorious outcome of the keeping-guarding,”[86] and that if “ἐκ ever occurs without the thought of emergence, it does so very exceptionally.”[87] However, this view of ἐκ generally, or in 1 Thessalonians 1:10/Revelation 3:10 in particular suffers from a number of problems, the use of the preposition is too varied to virtually assert a technical meaning.[88] Thomas Edgar has categorized the 923 NT uses of ἐκ as follows.[89]

Cause	20	Partitive	130
Content	32	Separation	52
Emergence	186	Source	253
Location	23	Time	16
Means	90

Second, Gundry uses the same argument regarding ἐκ in his explanation of Revelation 3:10. However as Wallace notes: “If ἐκ is related to a noun or is governed by a non-motion verb ... it will not necessarily imply motion .... The grammatical argument is not on the side of posttributionism, in spite of Gundry’s certitude.[90] Third, it is therefore too simplistic to say that ἐκ must indicate that something emerges from being in something else. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 1:10 Paul says that he was delivered from death. Paul uses the same verb (ρυόμενον) and the same preposition (ἐκ) as in 1 Thessalonians 1:10. The preposition does not force the conclusion that he was “in” death and then emerged from it; rather, he was spared from death.[91] Fourth, even if the preposition denoted a type of emergence, this would still not argue for postribulationism. This is because the posttrib position argues for a rapture before the Day of the Lord begins toward the end of the tribulation, not an emergence from what has already started. Fifth, when Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that the believers will be delivered ἐκ wrath, they are already in a state of being outside of God’s wrath. Therefore, the meaning could not be either that they would be placed in God’s wrath only to be removed at a later time, or be protected through God’s wrath. Thus the point is that they will be delivered from wrath without ever experiencing it. Sixth, by the time of the NT a careful distinction between ἐκ and ἀπό was fading and could explain why there is even a textual variant here—the uses of the prepositions overlapped.

While there are numerous uses of the preposition, the sense in this text would imply the idea of “from” indicating exclusion. Accordingly, Wanamaker has “saved or rescued from something”[92] as do all of the major translations (ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, NLT, NRS). Clearly, none of the versions are persuaded to an emergence, or “out of” idea in this context.

A third point of interest is the present participle (ρυόμενον) translated as “rescues,” “saves,” or “delivers” in the various versions. The participle is best taken substantivally thus yielding a translation of “the one who delivers,” or even “the deliverer.” Hiebert adds that the verbal “places the emphasis upon the greatness of the peril from which deliverance is given by a mighty act of power.”[93] Or as stated by Frame, God’s Son comes “to finish his work as rescuer, by freeing believers from the impending judgment.”[94]

This leads to the fourth important observation from this verse, namely, what is this impending judgment? What is the peril from which the believer is delivered? Or, to use Paul’s words, what is the “wrath to come?” Since Paul qualifies the wrath as something that is future, he is either referring to the pending Day of the Lord or the divine wrath of hell. Upon surveying the thirty-six NT uses of ὀργή it is apparent that either is possible. As is normally the case, one should look for contextual considerations to see which way the interpretation should tilt. There are a number of reasons which would argue the wrath of the Day of the Lord to be in view: (1) since the next wave of divine wrath to come on the world is the Day of the Lord wrath, it would make more sense to be “eagerly awaiting” that deliverance rather than a deliverance to come after the Kingdom age; (2) each chapter of the letter makes reference to eschatology by using key terms such as parousia and apokalupsis, and by referring to key events such as the tribulation, rapture, and the Day of the Lord. Nowhere in the letters does Paul speak of hell; and (3) Paul will specifically say in 5:9 that the believer will be saved from the wrath of the Day of the Lord.

If the four observations of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 are valid, then the expectation of the Thessalonian believers was that the Deliverer would rescue them from the wrath of the Day of the Lord. Based on the chart and the data from which it comes, this would yield a pretribulational rapture since the Day of the Lord includes the entire tribulation period.

1 Thessalonians 5:9

The interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is solidified even further when it is coupled with 1 Thessalonians 5:9. Whereas in the former passage, the Day of the Lord wrath must be deduced, in 5:1–10 it is clearly established by the apostle as the topic of discussion (5:2). The explanatory γάρ with which 5:2 begins demonstrates that the “times and seasons” of 5:1 (a) relate to the Day of the Lord, and (b) the Thessalonians’ lack of ignorance would hearken back to 1:10, thus forging a link between 1:10 and 5:1–10.[95]

Paul writes in 5:8 that the Thessalonians are to put on for hope, the helmet of salvation. “Hope” in the Bible refers to a future certainty, while “salvation” refers to deliverance from some peril. Thus these believers are urged by the apostle to take hold of the assurance they have of being rescued from some endangerment. That endangerment has already been established by Paul in 5:2 as the Day of the Lord. This is made even clearer with Paul’s use of another explanatory γάρ in 5:9. The reason they have a certain expectation of rescue is that they have not been “destined to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This statement is essentially identical to 1:10 and therefore produces two straightforward texts which teach the believer’s exemption from the wrath of the Day of the Lord.

Once more, based on the Old and New Testament descriptions of the Day of the Lord, and the identical nature of those descriptions with passages describing the tribulation, the inevitable conclusion is that these passages teach a pretribulational rapture. This is not an inferential conclusion, but based on a theme replete in Scripture (the Day of the Lord) linked with two exemption passages for the believer.

The Terminus A Quo And Posttribulationism

As seen in the previous discussion, the terminus a quo of the Day of the Lord could be the pivotal issue as to whether the rapture takes place before, some time during,[96] or at the end of the tribulation. This is acknowledged by both pre- and posttribulationalists. On the pre-trib side, C. C. Ryrie states that “Pre and posttribulationalists alike agree that the question of the Day of the Lord bears directly on the time of the rapture . . . when does the Day of the Lord begin?”[97] On the posttrib side, Robert Gundry states, “With reference to the time of the rapture, the crux of the argument lies in the terminus a quo, the beginning point of the day of the Lord, not in its millennial extension.”[98]

Though the book was published in 1973, it is the writer’s opinion that one of the best statements of the posttribulational perspective remains Robert Gundry’s book The Church and the Tribulation. The importance of Gundry’s book was stated at the time of release by fellow posttribulationalist Payne when he endorsed the book by saying that “this volume by ... Gundry is the most significant study that has yet appeared on the subject of the Church and the tribulation.”[99] In presenting his view, Gundry writes, “Not until the final crisis at Armageddon, when Jesus descends will God pour out His wrath upon the unregenerate.”[100] And again, “The Day of the Lord includes the final judgment of Armageddon.”[101] Still again, “Clearly, the Day of the Lord will not begin with the tribulation or any part of it.”[102] And finally, “We shall have to deduct the many passages containing the phrase ‘in the day’ which describe only the final crisis at Armageddon …. Armageddon refers to the final crisis … not to preceding campaigns.”[103] Fellow posttribulationist Douglas Moo concurs when he states that the “references to God’s wrath in Revelation refer mainly, if not exclusively, to the very end of history and not to the final tribulation per se.”[104]

In his more recent and superb volume on the New Testament, he has made similar statements. Dealing with Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, after agreeing that the disciples ask Jesus for both the signs of the destruction of the temple and his second coming, Gundry asserts that when Jesus speaks of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, etc., these are “non-signs.” This is necessary because of the posttribulational position that much of the Tribulation deals with the wrath of man and not the wrath of God. He then pictures the Church on earth during this time until “the sign” occurs which is the universal visibility of Christ.[105] Paul’s discussion of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 is also explained by Gundry:

Rapture is the term commonly used to designate the catching up of Christians at the second coming, as described in 4:16–17. Translation designates the immortalizing and glorifying of the bodies of Christians alive on earth when Jesus returns .... Paul reassures his audience by explaining that deceased Christians will be resurrected just before the rapture in order that they may be taken up along with Christians who are still alive on earth.[106]

In summarizing Gundry’s position from these statements, the following points emerge: (1) the OT Day of the Lord passages point to Armageddon, (2) all the divine wrath of the tribulation is poured out at the end of the seven years, (3) the period of the Day of the Lord is confined essentially to the second coming, and (4) most of the Tribulation consists of the wrath of man. Therefore, the church goes through the Tribulation only to be raptured before the Day of the Lord begins at Armageddon. He concludes, “Hence, the Church will continue on earth throughout the tribulation until the beginning of that day.”[107]

A Response

That all the wrath of the tribulation is poured out at the end of the period is questionable. This has already been shown to be counter to what Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:4–31). It also runs counter to the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments in Revelation 6–19 which are poured out during the tribulation. To be consistent with his position, Gundry of course must view these events as taking place simultaneously rather than consecutively. He writes, “Those passages in Revelation which speak of divine wrath deal, rather, with the close of the tribulation.”[108] To place all of these judgments at the end of the tribulation causes many problems: (1) If no divine judgment is poured out during the tribulation, one wonders what function it serves. Furthermore, why is it even called “the tribulation?” This would be no different than the opposition faced by the church throughout its history; (2) The Lamb is specifically said to open the first seal (Rev 6:1–2) indicating that the period of divine judgment, as opposed to human wrath, inaugurates the period; (3) In Revelation 6:17, after the sixth seal, it is stated that “the great day of his wrath has come.” The verb ἤλθεν suggests that the wrath has already been poured out rather than it would begin with the sixth seal. In order to counter this, Gundry states that the force of the verb is that the wrath is on the verge of breaking forth, that is, at the end of the tribulation.[109] However, the aorist use of the verb seems best taken referring to the judgments which already have taken place. For example, Alford states that the virtually “perfect sense of the aorist ἤλθεν here can hardly be questioned.”[110] Elsewhere, speaking of the same verb, he wrote that this sense of the aorist is “alluding to the result of the whole series of events past, and not to be expressed in English except by a perfect.”[111] Thomas adds, “It has to do with remaining on earth and maintaining an existence with the awareness that hardships will worsen as the intensity of God’s wrath grows. The question is rhetorical and has the effect of an unequivocal assertion that no one will survive.”[112] (4) If all of the divine judgments occur at the end of the period, then a numerous amount of events are crammed into a short period including: the rapture as a part of the second coming; the remaining seals, trumpets, and bowls; Armageddon; a time of peace and safety before the second coming, etc. (5) What is the point of having any rapture if the rapturees immediately return with Christ?[113] (6) Paul says that the Day of the Lord is preceded by a time of peace and safety. How could this describe the end of the tribulation? (7) Paul says that the Day of the Lord comes as a thief; but the second coming is preceded by signs, and (8) The seal judgments of Revelation 6are strikingly similar to events in the Olivet Discourse, some of which Jesus said were before the abomination of desolation at the middle of the Tribulation. This is why Jesus refers to them as “the beginning of birth pangs” which precede the abomination. The following chart illustrates this similarity with Revelation 6.[114]

The Olivet Discourse Revelation 6

Matthew 24:25 Revelation 6:2	Antichrist
Matthew 24:6–7 Revelation 6:3–4	war
Matthew 24:7  Revelation 6:5–6	famine
Matthew 24:7–9 Revelation 6:7–8	death
Matthew 24:9–10; 16–22 Revelation 6:9–11	martyrdom
Matthew 24:29 Revelation 6:12–14	cosmic changes
Matthew 24:32–25:26 Revelation 6:15–17	divine judgment

Conclusion

The Day of the Lord is a principal theme of Scripture and must be reckoned with when dealing with any aspect of eschatology. The data indicate that there have been historic days of the Lord when Yahweh manifested himself through judgment. These past days portend a future, extended Day of the Lord which will begin at the tribulation and extend through the kingdom age. The importance of this understanding is that it produces what could be the deciding proof for pretribulationism. Since the descriptions of the “night” portion of the Day of the Lord are virtually equivalent to the descriptions of the tribulation, this argues that the entire tribulation is a part of the Day of the Lord. Paul asserted in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that believers will be delivered from the coming wrath. He then specifically identified this wrath as that of the Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5:9. This line of reasoning shows that the pretribulational rapture is not merely an inference, as is often said, but an apostolic doctrine based on one of the primary teachings of Scripture. As such, the terminus a quo emerges as the deciding argument for pretribulationism.

Notes

1. L. Cerny, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (V Praze Nakladem Filosoficke Fakulty University, Karlovy, 1948), i.
2. Some passages are as follows: Isaiah 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezekiel 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18 (twice), 20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7, 14 (twice); Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 4:5.
3. It is the writer’s opinion, contra Richard Mayhue that the “great and terrible” day of the Lord refers to the intensification of the divine wrath at the end of the Day of the Lord rather than to the actual beginning of the Day. This is significant in that Mayhue represents a pretribulationist who argues that the Day of the Lord begins at the end of the Tribulation instead of encompassing the entire period (see Richard Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” Grace Theological Journal 6 [1985]: 231-46; and its updated version “The Bible’s Watchword: The Day of the Lord,” Master’s Seminary Journal 22.1 [2011]: 65-88).
4. Acts 2:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10. As is the case with the OT, there are many NT passages which do not use Day of the Lord terminology but refer to events during that time.
5. W. J. Beecher, “The Day of Jehovah in Joel,” The Homiletic Review 18 (1889): 355.
6. In his disparagement of dispensationalism, Mathison caricatures dispensationalists as those “who virtually equate the pretribulational rapture with Christian orthodoxy,” and those who reject the doctrine as a “closet liberal or worse” (Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1995], 115). Other than possibly some rabid preacher roaming the countryside, the writer is not aware of any dispensationalist who would make this claim. Not surprisingly, Mathison does not deal with the concept of the Day of the Lord in his chapter ridiculing the idea of the rapture (Ibid, 115-21), when in fact this is perhaps the most important concept in the discussion. Ironically, there is a sense in which even amillennialists believe in a rapture if they believe in resurrection. Hoekema reasoned that “when Christ returns, there will be a general resurrection, both of believers and unbelievers. After the resurrection, believers who are then still alive shall be transformed and glorified (1 Cor. 15:51-52). The ‘rapture’ of all believers then takes place. Believers who have been raised, together with living believers who have been transformed, are now caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-17). After this meeting in the air, the raptured church continues to be with Christ as he completes his descent to earth” (Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 170-71).
7. It is not the purpose of this article to interact with the pros and cons of all of the rapture positions. Rather, the purpose is to present one of the, if not the, most crucial arguments for the pretribulational position. It might be felt by some that the deciding text is Revelation 3:10. While this passage is best understood in a pretribulational sense, if the Day of the Lord were proved to begin at the end of the Tribulation, one could still argue a “pretrib” understanding of 3:10 in the sense that the “hour of testing” could be said to be only at the end of the tribulation. It remains the writer’s opinion, that while 3:10 does support a removal of the church before the seven–year Tribulation, this is contingent on proving when the Day of the Lord commences.
8. The summary of these passages is taken from Jerry Hullinger, New Testament Life and Belief: A Study in History, Culture, and Meaning (Winston-Salem, NC: Piedmont International University, 2014), 471-77.
9. The dates given are my own approximations and follow the general chronology of most conservative evangelical scholars. The purpose of the dates is to identify more easily the judgments in view in these prophecies.
10. A. J. Everson, “Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93 (1974): 330; Henry Dosker, “Day of the Lord,” in ISBE (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 2:799; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 1:123; G. A. Gay, “Day,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 294.
11. Some have sought to minimize this emphasis. For example, Otto Kaiser wrote, “Christians cannot simply take over these expectations in the concrete forms in which they are expressed here. ... For Christians, there is no other manifestation of God within time than in the preaching of the crucified and risen Christ” (Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, OLT, [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972], 30). Likewise, Oswalt suggested, “In a more proximate sense it can relate to the church age when the nations streamed to Zion to learn the ways of her God through his incarnation in Christ” (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 116).
12. For an example of one who sees 2:1-4 as eschatological and 2:5ff. as present, see Herbert Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of Messiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 76-78.
13. John Sailhamer, “Evidence from Isaiah 2, ” in The Coming Millennial Kingdom: A Case for Premillennial Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 102.
14. R. L. Saucy, “The Eschatology in the Bible,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 1:256; J. S. Wright, “Day of the Lord,” in New Bible Dictionary 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982), 269; Young, Book of Isaiah, 1:419.
15. Richard Mayhue, “Prophet’s Watchword,” 239; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 1:234.
16. G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 66. The same principle is stated by Stuart who, commenting on the two major sections of Joel, observed that “Joel sees two Days of Yahweh: the one underway, described in 1:1-2:17, and the one coming in the future, as described in 2:18-4:21. Both Days are ‘near,’... the imminence of the Day being a standard prophetic theme, but the actual timing of the two events will be separated by an uncertain span” (Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah WBC [Dallas: Word, 2002], 231).
17. Henry Virkler, Hermeneutics: Biblical Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 201.
18. Alva McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 38.
19. R. C. H. Lenski, An Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 77.
20. R. K. Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 170; Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 8, Jeremiah, Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 178; C. C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About the Rapture (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 93.
21. J. S. Wright, “Day of the Lord,” 269; Saucy, “Eschatology in the Bible,” 256; Everson, “Days of Yahweh,” 330; Charles Dyer, “Ezekiel,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 1251.
22. The dating of Joel is notoriously difficult due to the scanty internal evidence. The range of possibilities includes early pre-exilic, mid pre-exilic, late pre-exilic, and post-exilic. All of the views are subject to criticism, but the option adopted above is early pre-exilic.
23. H. Hosch, “The Concept of Prophetic Time in the Book of Joel,” JETS 15 (1972): 32-38.
24. William Harper, Amos and Hosea (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966), 131-32.
25. J. S. Wright, “Day of the Lord,” 269; Colin Brown, “Day of the Lord (Yahweh),” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 2:46; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 554; James Orr, “Eschatology of the Old Testament,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2:977.
26. E. Henderson, The Books of the Twelve Minor Prophets (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1845), 195.
27. W. C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 188.
28. Leslie Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Amos, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 160-61.
29. Charles Feinberg, Four Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1976), 33-35.
30. Mayhue, “Prophet’s Watchword;” 234-35.
31. John Hannah, “Zephaniah,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1525.
32. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 188; Ladd, Presence in the Future, 67.
33. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 259.
34. Some writers are easier than others to put into categories. The difficult ones are those who do not treat the Day of the Lord as a major issue (i.e., many post- and amillennialists). In such cases, what has been written is considered. For instance, amazingly, such a prolific theme as the Day of the Lord is barely touched on in Robert Reymond’s very helpful systematic theology. In addition, he misunderstands the dispensational perspective by indicating as a whole they believe the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 occur seven years before the events of 5:1-11 (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 1023). Similarly, Wayne Grudem has no “day of the Lord” entry in the subject index of his Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). Millard Erickson touches on the Day of the Lord in relation to C. H. Dodd’s realized eschatology (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 3:1159), briefly discusses 1 Thessalonians 5:2, but does not refer to the Day of the Lord (3:1190), and then rejects pretribulationism without dealing with the subject (3:1191-92).
35. B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford UP, 1929), 603.
36. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 696.
37. L. Cerny, Day of Yahweh, vii, 26.
38. A. R. Fausset, A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 3:467.
39. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 3:267.
40. George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistle’s to the Thessalonians: Introductions and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 64, 98.
41. Thomas Oden, Systematic Theology: Life in the Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 409.
42. William Hendriksen, New Testment Commentary: Exposition of I and II Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 122; James Frame, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 178.
43. Richard Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” 245, 246.
44. C. F. Keil, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 186-87.
45. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 14, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 36. See also John Eadie, The John Eadie Text Commentaries, vol. 5, Thessalonians (1877; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 175; F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 109; and Wolf, “Thessalonians,” 110.
46. Gaebelein, Four Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1976), 33.
47. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:398.
48. Gary Smith, Isaiah 1-39, NAC (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 297.
49. John Freeman, “Day of the Lord,” in Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 204.
50. G. N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972), 2:410-11.
51. H. C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 507.
52. Scofield Reference Bible, 1349. Interestingly, Cooke states, “By Ezekiel and other post-exilic prophets the word was used with an added significance; the Day was to consummate the overthrow of heathenism and user in the age of blessedness” (G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936], (78). Others include Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, HNTC (NY: Harper and Row, 1972), 206; Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 158-59; Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 232; G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, IVP NT Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 143-44.
53. For other uses see Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew–English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, n.d.), 398-401.
54. Cerny, The Day of Yahweh, 5.
55. G. A. Gay, “Days of Christ, God, the Lord,” 295.
56. A. J. Everson, “Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93 (1974): 335, 337.
57. Hans Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 33.
58. Allen, Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 100.
59. For one who says these have been fulfilled in the present age, see Oswald Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 135.
60. R. G. Gruenler, “Last Days, Days,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 619.
61. W. C. Kaiser, Towards an Old Testament Theology, 191.
62. Brown, “Day of the Lord,” 1:47.
63. Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1983), 178.
64. Feinberg, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 15.
65. J. F. Walvoord, “Posttribulationism Today,” BSac 134 (1977): 8.
66. Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity: An Outline of the Divine Purpose (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 77.
67. Brown, “Day of the Lord,” 1:46; Clarence Mason, “The Day of the Lord,” BSac 125 (1968): 354-55; E. H. Plumptre, “Isaiah,” in Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: A Verse By Verse Explanation; (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 4:423.
68. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 38.
69. An interesting observation was made in the history of this discussion by J. T. Cooper who said that the millennium could also be seen as a period of judgment since unbelievers would be present during that time which would culminate in the Great White Throne (J. T. Cooper, “The Judgment, or Judgments,” in The Second Coming of Christ: Premillennial Essays of the Prophetic Conference Held in the Church of the Holy Trinity, New York City [Chicago: Revell, 1879], 247). The writer was not able to acquire this volume and the information is taken from Craig Blaising, “The Day of the Lord: Theme and Pattern in Biblical Theology,” BSac 169 no. 673 (January 2012): 5. While it is true that Christ will need to reign with a rod of iron during the Kingdom age, this time should still be viewed as the “light” of the Day since the characteristic is a time of righteousness and the fulfillment of Israel’s covenants.
70. For an assessment of the view that the events of the discourse were fulfilled in AD 70, see Stanley Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” BSac 161, no. 644 (October 2004): 469-90. For a preterist/futurist debate see Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation, Past or Future: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). In his historical study on the early church and preterism, H. Wayne House concludes: An examination of the patristic literature from the late first century of the Christian era through the eighth century reveals that this sampling [Epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, John of Damascus] of the words of the Fathers demonstrates that what is known as Preterism held virtually no sway in the eschatological perspectives taught by the Church Fathers. Though not all were pre-millennialists, nor futurists in the contemporary sense, nonetheless the overwhelming consensus was that the Second Coming of Christ was future from each of the writer’s time frame and that it included the revelation of the Antichrist before the coming of Christ, an apostasy, a tribulation of the saints, and for some a millennial kingdom following the coming. Though the perspectives on the place of the Jews in the future kingdom of God, the millennial reign of David’s Son, and other important doctrines were not consistent among the Fathers, largely I believe dependent on the influence of the apostles in Asia and neo-Platonic thought in Egypt, nevertheless the Church looked for a future coming of Christ in judgment on a rejecting sinful world but a Blessed Hope of the coming of Christ for His Church. (H. Wayne House, “The Understanding of the Church Fathers Regarding the Olivet Discourse and the Fall of Jerusalem” Paper presented at the Pre-Trib Conference, 2009).
71. Also related to the time of the discourse’s fulfillment is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:34 where he says to his disciples “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (ESV). The key question has to do with what Jesus meant when he referred to “this generation” (γενεὰαὕτη). The importance of the issue lies in the fact that one’s interpretation of this phrase will impact the time the discourse is fulfilled. There have been at least seven interpretations which will be briefly mentioned here: Some imply that the “generation” was Jesus’ disciples. Since all of the events did not occur during their lifetime, Jesus made a mistake due to his humanness. (2) The second view also sees the generation as Jesus’ disciples, but since the events did not occur literally during their lifetime, Jesus was speaking metaphorically and find their fulfillment in AD 70. This is the common approach of preterism. (3) Others interpret “generation” as a race of people. Thus Jesus meant that the Jewish race would not come to an end before events of the discourse had been fulfilled (and of course would continue after that). (4) Another suggested possibility centers around the verb “take place” which can have the sense of “to begin.” This would take the verb as an ingressive aorist focusing on the beginning of the events. Therefore the events of the discourse would begin in the days of the present disciples but would not be completed until the Lord returned. (5) A fifth possibility is to see the discourse as an instance of a prophecy which has multiple fulfillments. There is then a fulfillment in AD 70 and another fulfillment in the future tribulation and second coming. (6) Another option is to take “this generation” as a technical phrase referring to an evil class of people which opposes Jesus’ disciples and God’s program. (7) A final suggestion is that the phrase “this generation” should be governed by the phrase “all these things.” So, this generation refers to the generation which witnesses “the things” mentioned in the discourse. In other words, the generation which is alive at the time will see the beginning and ending of these events. It should be noted that views 3-7 are all compatible (though not all equally valid) with the futuristic understanding of the discourse as adopted in this section. Perhaps the most compelling view is #6. For a full defense of this position see Neil Nelson, “‘This Generation’ in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective,” JETS 38, no. 3 (September 1996). See also the discussion in Susan Rieske, “What is the Meaning of ‘This Generation’ in Matthew 23:36, ” (24:36) [sic] BSac 165, no. 658 (April–June 2008): 209-226.
72. For a discussion and validation of this chronology, see H. A. Ironside, Biblical Eschatology (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947), 15-26; Alva McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 49-67; Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975); J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 239-50; Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince: The Marvelous Prophecy of Daniel’s SeventyWeeks Concerning the Antichrist, 17th ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1984), 121-23. However, for a recent dispensational discussion of the issue which reaches a different conclusion, see Christopher Hughes, “The Terminus ad Quem of Daniel’s 69th Week: A Novel Solution,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 17, no. 51 (Summer/Fall, 2013).
73. Craig Blaising, “The Day of the Lord and the Rapture,” BSac 169, no. 675 (Jul 2012): 270.
74. The reason the blessing aspect of the Day of the Lord was never present during the historical days of the Lord was due to Israel’s disobedience under the theocratic arrangement with Yahweh. When Israel is given a new heart as promised in the new covenant, the blessing aspect of the Day of the Lord will shortly follow.
75. The use of “kingdom age” instead of millennium is on purpose. Dispensationalists need to stress and continue to argue strongly that their view of the kingdom is grounded in the OT material and expectation of the OT hope and covenants by Christ and the apostles. There is a sense in which the duration of that kingdom age as mentioned in Revelation 20 is not the crux of the debate and is not necessary for the position.
76. This chart was produced by Devin Purgason, who is a student at Piedmont International University.
77. The thought, however, is found elsewhere in Paul. See F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 18.
78. Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. BDAG, 68.
79. Johannes P Louw., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 1:729.
80. Newman, Barclay M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stüttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1993), 12.
81. C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians (Shreveport, LA: Lambert, 1977), 46.
82. Of course “imminency” does not mean that something is necessarily soon, but that it could happen at any moment.
83. For an excellent discussion of imminency, see Earl Radmacher, “The Imminent Return of the Lord,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis, John P. Master, and Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 247-67.
84. There is a textual discrepancy as to whether the preposition should be ἐκ or ἀπό. After a thorough analysis of the data, Wallace concludes that the ἀπό reading should be favored. Though ἐκ has the strength of aleph and B, he argues that the Western-Byzantine could actually be earlier, and that the internal evidence definitely leans toward ἀπό (Dan Wallace, “A Textual Problem in 1 Thessalonians 1:10: ἘκτῆςὈργῆς vs. ἈπὸτῆςὈργῆς” BSac 147, no. 588 [1990]: 470-479). Regardless, the writer is going to assume in this article that ἐκ is the correct reading. This is not due to the belief that ἐκ is the correct reading (though there is also valid evidence that it is), but for sake of argument. As will be seen, posttribulationist Gundry supports his view in part on the use of ἐκ in Revelation 3:10. He says that if 3:10 had used ἀπό this would at least permit the possibility of a pretrib rapture; however, the use of ἐκ is decidedly against it (The Church and the Tribulation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], 57). Not surprisingly, Gundry adopts the ἐκ reading in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 (Ibid.). Therefore, not to stack the deck in favor of a perceived pretrib reading, the “posttrib” reading will be taken.
85. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, 55-56.
86. Ibid., 57.
87. Ibid, 56.
88. For example, origin, source, agency, basis, cause, and means (Murray Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Resource for Exegesis [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012], 103-104. Wallace adds separation, temporal, and partitive to the list (Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 371. See also the uses in BADG, 295-98.
89. Thomas Edgar, “Robert H. Gundry and Revelation 3:10, ” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 1 (1982): 26-27.
90. Daniel Wallace, “A Note on τηρήσω ἐκ in Revelation 3:10, ” <bible.org/article/note-revelation-310> (accessed 29 March 2015).
91. See also the following passages: John 20:21; Acts 12:7; 27:29; 28:4.
92. Charles Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 88.
93. D. Edmond Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles: A Call to Readiness (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 72.
94. James E. Frame, Thessalonians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 88.
95. The lack of an article before ἡμέρα could also indicate that the Day of the Lord theme was entrenched in the readers’ minds.
96. The views in mind with reference to the phrase “some time during,” are the mid-trib and pre-wrath positions. The mid-trib position has been advocated by scholars such as J. Oliver Buswell and Gleason Archer. They argue that the rapture will occur before the wrath of God falls on the earth during the last half of the tribulation. This wrath begins at the seventh trumpet. The pre-wrath view was brought to the fore most notably by Marvin Rosenthal (The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990] and Robert Van Kampen (The Sign [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1992]). In their scheme, the tribulation is divided into three divisions. The third division, the Day of the Lord, begins with the breaking of the seventh seal which then unleashes the wrath of God as opposed to the wrath of man that had been experienced in the first two divisions of the tribulation. The rapture will occur between the second and third divisions. For a response, see Renald Showers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View: An Examination and Critique (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).Though the terminus a quo of the Day of the Lord argued for in this article would disprove both of these positions, the main area of interaction in the text is with the post-trib view.
97. Ryrie, What You Should Know about the Rapture, 93.
98. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, 89.
99. J. B. Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (NY: Harper & Row, 1973), 119.
100. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, 48.
101. Ibid., 92.
102. Ibid., 95.
103. Ibid., 11, 92.
104. Douglas Moo, “A Case for the Posttribulation Rapture,” in Three Views on the Rapture 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 192. Moo’s later statements, however, seem confusing in light of the clarity of the above statement. For example, he later writes that “Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to live godly lives that they might avoid the judgmental aspects of that day—not that they might avoid the day itself” (206). This statement makes several potentially confusing implications.
105. Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 196.
106. Ibid, 363. See also his chart on 365.
107. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, 99.
108. Ibid., 77.
109. Ibid., 76.
110. Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 622; see also Henry Swete, Commentary on Revelation: The Greek Text, Kregel Reprint Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980), 95.
111. Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:665. Though affirming a cyclical view of the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, Osborne correctly notes on the verb, “the use of the aorist ἤλθεν...should be understood like the parallel in Luke 11:20... (the aorist there also points to an event that has already occurred)” (Grant Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NTC [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 297-98).
112. Robert Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 459.
113. Gleason Archer referred to this as the “yo-yo” rapture (Gleason Archer, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 215).
114. It should be pointed out that premillenarians differ as to when the seal judgments actually begin. Some see them all occurring within the first 3½ years. Others relegate them to the last 3 ½ years. Still others see some taking place in both halves. However, the writer is not arguing for a particular chronology based on this chart. It is simply being shown from the parallelisms the great difficulty of suggesting that all of the judgments occur at the end of the tribulation.