A question I am getting a lot lately is why I remain rapture minded. Rapture minded as a technical term would be dispensational. Give the news flaring about concerning Israel, this is an often asked question. So here are a few reasons why I hold to a rapture.

Jesus took God’s wrath on our behalf

It makes no sene to me for the church to go through the tribulation. The tribulation is God pouring out His wrath on mankind. Given that the Gospel is Jesus bore God’s wrath on our behalf and the tribulation being explicitly God’s wrath, and the rapture is to save us from the wrath to come. The rapture is not escaping Creation as God made the heavens and the Earth. Further, Jesus describes a gathering of his own to himself. This is incongruent with the return picture given in the Bible. Jesus receives us, we don’t receive him at the end of the age.

Revelation is future not past or allegory

Preaching through the book of Revelation these last 5 months, and preparing to preach for it strengthened my belief that the book is prophetic about the future. Exegetically, it makes the most sense. Arguments that it its repetitive history do not hold up given other passages of the Bible, like Matthew 24. Revelations 3:10 exegetically points to a pre-trip rapture at best, and at worse defeats a&post-millennial viewpoints. Revelation 20 exegetically follows Revelation 19. The events are not separate, so Revelation 20 is not a re-hashing of history. Further, the language does not allow for the postmillennial viewpoint. More so, the preterit viewpoint does not have agreement on historical events to match the flow of history, but events post AD 70 have been worse than what occurred in 70AD. Given Matthew 14 and Revelation stating events being the worse there has ever been or ever will be, future is the best option.

Israel means ethnic Israel

“Not all Israel is Israel” is a statement of exclusion, not inclusion. The church being Israel or true Israel makes zero sense given Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11. First, the covenants belong to Israel and are not revocable. Second, the concept of salvation history is viewed as mercy, not covenant. Third, we who were not a people are now “A” people, not “THE” people. Meaning God views humanity through nationhood, not a singular nation. Fourth, while God hardened Israel so Gentiles nations may be a people for God, this same Gospel will also again bring Israel back to her former glory. Meaning while Israel are enemies of the Gospel for our sake, they are still loved because of the promises made to the patriarchs.

Prophecy is more literal than we would like to admit

Prophecy made in the OT that was fulfilled in the OT was done so literally. Prophecy concerning Jesus made in the OT and fulfilled in the NT was done so literally. Prophecy in the OT made about Israel rejecting the messiah was fulfilled in the NT and history literally. It makes zero sense that the positive OT prophecies yet fulfilled are done so allegorically in the church. It does not fit the pattern or practice of an unchanging God. It doesn’t fit the integrity statements in Psalms or Romans or Hebrews that God cannot lie. Meaning, the OT prophecies could be understood by Israel in the OT. Revelation, half of which is quoting the OT, demonstrates a literal fulfillment of OT prophecies, a restoration of Israel, and an answer to the question raised in Acts 1:7- Is now the time you restore the kingdom to Israel.

I believe in eternal security

If God replaced and or is done with Israel then there is no eternal security of preservation of the saints. Romans 8:38-39 is meaningless. Salvation is dependent on man. Why? Because if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will He spare us. God promise of perseveration was made to Israel while undergoing punishment. Israel’s restoration is a key aspect to the New Covenant. God restores her for His glory amongst the nations. Hard to do if us gentile nations are Spiritual Israel.

A covenant is legally explicit

A covenant isn’t a mystery or a systematic theology. It is an explicit contract that cannot be voided on God’s part. A covenant is a covenant when the Bible states such explicitly. Thus the covenant of grace and works is not biblically a covenant. Nor is covenant the best way to view Scripture. Three passages in the NT that view salvation history do not do so through the lens of covenant, but of mercy in Romans 9-11, faith in Hebrews 11, and God’s protection in Revelation 12. What the three views do have in common is Israel. If covenant was the main thing in view, surely one of those three would have that as the focus. Such is not there, and the covenants that do exist in the Bible are declared to be property of ethnic Israel.

Not new and a warning

While the rapture minded viewpoint is newer than covenant theology, both are comparatively new to all of church history. The amillennial viewpoint was grew to dominance because the premillennial viewpoint was too jewish and too earthly. The leap from the postmillennial viewpoint to premillennial was not as great in the 1700’s as it is today because now replacement theology is all the rage. The rapture minded viewpoint existed throughout history and was systemized by a man named Darby. He didn’t create anything new. The system evolved as we wrestled with Scripture. But a key aspect is this thing called Israel. Paul warns us to not be arrogant concerning the natural branches. Other viewpoints trended towards antisemitism, such as the founding of amillennial thought. I find it very curious that the recent clarion calls to end the rapture minded viewpoint are concurrent with a significant rise of antisemitism. I view the rapture minded viewpoint as repentance, realizing the Bible is not about us, but of God’s glory and His love of Israel, and also to us whom were formerly not a people. Like Paul, I say I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation. To the Jew first, and also for us.