RAPTURE: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath

Rating:
Summary: Gracious Presentation of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath Rapture
Review: "Don Montgomery has written an excellent, layman-friendly book that graciously proves the Bible teaches the Rapture of the church is after the Tribulation and before God pours out his Wrath. This book is exceptional because it is original, and not a rehashing of everything else you have probably already read about the post-trib Rapture. Some of Don's conclusions may surprise you, but they will inspire you to dig into your Bible and pray and think.

Interestingly, RAPTURE: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath is also an excellent book for preterists who are open to considering Don's conclusion that Jesus prophesied two destructions of Jerusalem: one in 70 A.D. and one still future. Don's analysis will encourage preterists to harmonize all of the scriptures regarding Christ's Olivet Discourse.

Buy RAPTURE: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath. It will make you think.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Food for Thought
Review: ...

About a year and a half ago Don Montgomery e-mailed me, telling me that he had written a new book on the end-times called Rapture: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath. He sent me a copy with the hope that I would review it for TNN Online and that it would contribute to my present book research (Don's book is listed in the bibliography of the upcoming When Will the Messiah Return?). I read it in a few weeks, hoping to review it, but unfortunately forgot about it for quite some time. But, thanks to some prodding, Don e-mailed me a few short weeks ago, I read the book for a second time, and I am pleased to offer some of my thoughts as well as an online "interview" that I conducted with Don where I asked him some questions about his interpretations of the Last Days.

I would like to commend Don as a fellow brother in the faith for taking up arms against pre-tribulationism. All of us who have done so have experienced some rejection from those of the pre-trib camp and it takes a person with strong convictions to do this. In my experience of reading Rapture: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath I was very pleased to see the information delivered in a very direct, yet loving spirit. Don does not "attack" pre-tribulationists but he does make a very strong case against the fallacies of the doctrine.

The title Rapture: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath is bound to get many people asking questions. There are two relatively established positions in pre-millennial eschatology that go by these classifications. One advocates that the rapture of the saints occurs at the end of a seven-year Tribulation period and the second advocates that the saints are raptured sometime between the midpoint of that seven-year period and the end of it. Don suggests a new approach to Daniel's Seventieth Week (cf. Daniel 9:27) which is that two overlapping seven year periods exist, the second of them being the Time of Jacob's trouble (discussed in interview further on). I must admit, I found this to be a rather odd interpretation of these prophesies. Don believes that the gathering of the saints occurs at the end of this second time period before the "wrath" judgments are poured out on the world.

As a political scientist, I am not one to disclude something outright and I believe that much of what Don has to say has merit, or at the very least needs to be added to our list of end-time "possibilities." In describing the Last Days, Don has some excellent commentary on the parallel accounts of the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 with Luke 21 (pp 74-82). He explains that the Messiah's description in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 speaks of future events, whereas Luke 21 is more general and applies to both the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (A.D.) and the end-times. I also greatly appreciated Don's dialogue concerning the Abomination of Desolation and how it is not necessarily that a temple be rebuilt for the antichrist to desecrate the holy place (pp 129-132). Don also provides a unique interpretation of the first seal of Revelation in that he does not believe it applies to the antichrist arriving on a "white horse" but rather it speaks of the gospel message going forth to the world (pp 125-129). I had never heard this perspective before and believe that it should be strongly considered.

There are a few things in Rapture: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath that I respectfully disagree with. The first is Don's application of the word "taken" (pp 82-90). The specific Greek word is paralambano and it means to take along side. The sort of "taking" that can occur with paralambano is purely dependent on the context of a verse. It can be a good "taking" or a bad "taking." Don uses references such as "one shall be taken, and the other left" for a reference to the rapture. I have seen this used by both pre- and post-tribulationists to this end, although I believe that the context of the verses implies judgment as opposed to "rapture." I also believe that there are some misapplications of paralambano in the chart that Don provides on pp 185-186.

Another slight disagreement I have is with some of Don's comments on pp 132-135 where he discludes the possibility of the antichrist arising from Europe. There is a mistake with is the connection of "ten" and the E.U. saying that the European Economic Community, or more correctly the European Union, presently has sixteen members and is disqualified. Yet the E.U. is still a developing entity and we have no way of knowing how it will look in the coming years. He, believes, rather, that the antichrist will come from Assyria based on prophesies of Isaiah 10. However, I have seen translations of these verses that imply that the judgment of God will be upon the people of Assyria, not necessarily a specific "Assyrian" (cf. Isaiah 10:5, NASB). (Although I think we would both agree that we will not fully know who the antichrist is until he performs the Abomination of Desolation.)

I would emphasize that any "disagreements" I have with Don are based on present convictions that I have and that I may be wrong --- as we are dealing with future events. Many prophesies can be looked at from different perspectives. All too often we as Believers have a tendency to "limit" our prophetic understandings rather than considering all the options before us. I believe Don has some excellent insight into many prophesies and I will consider what he has to say rather than "shooting them down" outright, as many others will, unfortunately.

All in all, I believe that you will find Rapture: Post-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath to be a very thought provoking and challenging book and hopefully it will stimulate you to look more into the mysterious prophesies of Holy Scripture. It certainly has challenged me and I commend Don for encouraging us to watch for His return with eagerness and I believe he has contributed some excellent "food for thought" to the ongoing study of Bible prophecy.

Rating:
Summary: Shaky premises
Review: I appreciate it when people have an open mind to a new understanding regarding the topic of the rapture--but that does not mean that any new understanding will do. Mr. Montgomery uses dangerous hermeneutics in this book that I believe invalidate his theory. He bases much of his conclusions on assumptions which he does not support or defend--he just assumes them.

For example, his entire theory is based on the premise that the end-times events in Revelation and Daniel actually occur during two overlapping periods of 7 years--the 70th week of Daniel and Jacob's Trouble. Even though everything rests on this premise, the author give NO scriptural evidence to show that the time of Jacob's Trouble lasts 7 years. NEITHER does he spend any time demonstrating that Jacob's Trouble is different from the 70th week, or a part of the 70th week (such as the Great Tribulation). Rather, he uses this assumption to allow a longer timeline of events (around 10 years). I found it very interesting that the term "Jacob's Trouble" is only used in one place in Scripture (Jer. 30), and this Scripture mentions nothing about a 7 year period--but that is a foundational argument of this book.

A few other assumptions the author also makes seem to weaken his credibility. For example, since 7 years in Daniel are referred to as a "week", the author applies that selectively (but not consistently) to time periods mentioned in the book of Revelation-so that any time it mentions a day, he says it means a year, an hour is rendered as 1/24th of a year, or 15 days. This completely ignores several facts: 1. The original Hebrew term translated "weeks" allows it to be translated as "sevens" and can therefore actually be intended to mean 7 years, but the Greek words for "day" and "hour" do not have alternate translations that allow them to be rendered as "year" and "15-day-period". 2. Daniel explained that his "weeks" were 7 years long so that we wouldn't misinterpret them to be just 7 days long. John made no similar distinction, so why should we assume that when he said "1 hour" that he meant otherwise. 3. The author is applying a linguistic choice made and explained by Daniel to a work written (and not explained) by John.

I give this book 2 stars because I appreciate the effort to present a fresh look at several passages of Scripture, and some parts of this book bring valid questions to mind, but overall the new ideas are based on the author's assumptions which he makes no attempt to support/defend.