Why Rapture Imminence and Rapture Sign-Watching Cannot Both Be True
One of the most common inconsistencies in modern Christian eschatology (more specifically, within the pre-tribulational/dispensational camp) is the attempt to affirm both the imminence of the (pre-trib) Rapture (the supernatural catching away of the Church from Earth to Heaven by Jesus) and the existence of signs that precede it. Many will quickly say, “I believe Jesus could come at any moment,” while also claiming that the Church must first observe so-called “end-time signs” like apostasy, globalism, technology, wars, Israel’s political developments, a rebuilt temple, or some alleged “prophetic convergence” before the Rapture can occur.
Many of these advocates have prophecy ministries largely built on convincing you that those “signs” are happening presently, and therefore we are now predictably close to the Rapture. But those two ideas of imminence and signs-watching cannot logically coexist. Definitionally, if a predicted sign must occur before the Rapture, then the Rapture is not imminent. Conversely, if the Rapture is truly imminent, then no predicted sign can stand between the Church and Christ’s coming. An imminent coming means an “any-moment” coming according to the standard definition of the word itself.
Imminence does not merely mean that we do not know the exact day or hour. Almost every eschatological view could affirm that. A posttribulationist could say, “I do not know the precise day or hour of Christ’s return.” A prewrath advocate could say the same. But historic pretribulational imminence means more than uncertainty about the exact date. It means Christ may come at any moment, with no necessary event, sign, prophecy, or condition required first. The event is always possible. Nothing must happen before it.
Bible scholar Renald Showers gives an excellent overview of the scriptural usage of the term “imminence.”
The English word “imminent” comes from the Latin verb “immineo, imminere,” which means to “overhand” or “project.” In light of this, the English word “imminent” means “hanging over one’s head, ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence.” Thus, an imminent event is one that is always hanging overhead and is constantly ready to befall or overtake a person. Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before an event can happen, that event is not imminent. The necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency. [1]
To the dismay of modern prophecy teachers who rely on hype and sensationalism for audience retention and monetization, this is the long-standing definition of imminence by Dispensationalists, and is based on the actual dictionary meaning of the word itself. That is why sign-watching and imminence are definitionally contradictory. If one were to claim, “The Rapture cannot happen until this sign occurs,” then Christ cannot come at any moment. The believer is not truly waiting for Christ; he is waiting for the sign.
This is not a minor disagreement over terminology. It changes the posture of the Church and fundamentally alters the instruction given to us, most notably by Jesus Himself, and then subsequently by the New Testament authors. The consistent biblical command is always for believers to look for Christ Himself, not to search the headlines for imagined prophetic prerequisites or convergences.
This basic understanding is so fundamental to the pre-trib doctrine that it is essentially baked into the idea of a pre-trib Rapture to begin with. Another scholar, Wayne A. Brindle, writes:
The term “imminence” (or imminency) as applied to the rapture of the church means that Christ may return at any moment for His church, and no biblically predicted event must necessarily precede it. Those who believe that Christ will return for His church before the Tribulation normally hold that the rapture is imminent – that it may occur at any time and that it is the next predicted event in God’s prophetic timetable. [2]
So the Rapture is something that can occur at any time. No prophesied event must precede it. If this is biblically true, then logically, the pre-trib rapture is established. Any other view violates this teaching of imminency, since the Rapture could not be expected until after the occurrence of certain prophesied events and could not therefore be considered imminent.
Not only is imminence basic to the concept of the pre-trib Rapture, but we should recognize that the very Greek word (harpazó) that underlies our English word “rapture” fundamentally conveys the nuance of imminence by definition. One Bible commentary aptly brings out this often-overlooked subtlety:
Harpazo conveys the idea of force suddenly exercised, and also well rendered by the English verb to snatch (to seize, take or grasp something [or someone] abruptly or hastily with emphasis on the idea of suddenness or quickness). Harpazo was used of rescuing one from a situation of threatening danger, as in ‘snatching them out of the fire’ (see Jude 1:23). [3]
The idea of being suddenly yanked out of impending danger is only consistent with imminence, and imminence is only consistent with a pre-trib Rapture. Therefore, one might even go as far as to state that by definition, the Rapture is pretribulational because imminence is implied in its very meaning.
Based on this, the pretribulational/dispensational position insists that the Church’s hope is Christ’s any-moment coming. The Rapture is not introduced in scripture as an event preceded by visible signs. It is presented as sudden, unpredictable, and possible to occur in every generation and at every moment of the Church Age. No signs are required in order to expect the Rapture as imminent. And signs are incompatible with imminence.
This is obvious since our understanding of imminence itself comes not only from Jesus, but the New Testament authors, who all wrote of this expectation back in the first century. In other words, the Rapture was already to be expected as “any moment” nearly two thousand years ago. And if this is true, then there’s yet another nail in the coffin of the date-setters who would like to convince us that the Rapture has only become imminent recently, due to the supposed appearance of signs. But if Paul and others were declaring the imminence of the Rapture as current back in the first century, then it is obvious that they were not awaiting future signs.
Several examples can be quickly noted. Paul tells the Thessalonians nearly two thousand years ago “to wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 1:10). He does not tell them to wait for apostasy, a treaty, a temple, wars, digital currency, or geopolitical movements. He doesn’t even tell them to await the restoration of Israel as a nation.
Another example of imminence is found in Titus 2:13, which says that believers are to be “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Again, the object of expectation is Christ Himself, not for some alleged signs that scripture nowhere instructs us to await. A deeper look into imminence in scripture is found in this article (link).
This does not mean the Bible says nothing about future signs. It certainly does. The question is not whether biblical signs exist. The question is: signs when, signs for whom, signs of what, and signs in relation to which event? Dispensational interpretation requires careful distinctions.
Many prophetic signs relate to Israel, the nations, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming proper (the climactic ending of the Lord’s Second Advent). But signs that occur within the Tribulation or anywhere in the judgment phase of the broad Day of the Lord are not Rapture signs for the Church. They do not actually offer us any real predictability. To turn them into Rapture signs is to confuse categories and undermine imminence. And if we are so easily able to bypass imminence by looking for Tribulation signs, then in what way is the Rapture actually imminent?
Matthew 24 is probably the most common passage misused by sign-watchers and date-setters. Jesus speaks of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, false christs, persecution, the abomination of desolation, cosmic disturbances, and then His visible coming in glory. But the context of these signs is not the Church waiting for the Rapture. The disciples ask about the destruction of the temple, the sign of His coming, and the end of the age. Jesus gives signs connected to Israel, Jerusalem, the temple, Judea, the Sabbath, and the visible coming of the Son of Man at the end of the Tribulation. These signs identify the nearness of the Second Coming proper (the physical coming at the end of the Tribulation), not the Rapture.
In other words, these signs are events that occur within the broad period of the Day of the Lord, giving understanding to those at that time of how close they are to its climax. This is why Matthew 24:32-33 says, “when ye shall see all these things, know that it [the end of the Tribulation] is near, even at the doors.” The people who see “all these things” are those living in the period when these tribulational signs are unfolding. The often-misinterpreted fig tree section then summarizes the sequence of signs just described, comparing the predictability of summer once the signs of the seasonal budding of a fig tree are underway to the predictability of Christ’s visible return once the Day of the Lord signs are underway.
But then Jesus completely shifts His context in Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man.” He now shifts from answering the disciples’ “signs” question to now answering their question about the timing. From that point onward, the emphasis changes from identifiable signs to unpredictability, suddenness, and watchfulness. In other words, instead of focusing on the completely predictable climax of that eschatological period, He now moves to discuss the complete unpredictability of the absolute beginning point of that period. Instead of focusing on the signs in the broad Day of the Lord that lead up to its narrow, climactic finale, He now shifts to focus on the suddenness and signlessness of the time immediately prior to the broad Day’s absolute beginning.
So the “sequence of signs” section has to do with signs after the Rapture that lead up to the ending of the Tribulation. Meanwhile, the “no man knows the day or hour” section concerns the unpredictable arrival of the broader Day of the Lord period as a whole, which begins with the Rapture.
This distinction is crucial. The Second Coming proper is signaled by events inside the broad Day. The Rapture is not. There are no signs leading up to the Rapture, which occurs at the opening of the broad period of the Day of the Lord. They are simultaneous events, which is why both the Rapture and the beginning of that Day are both described as being imminent in scripture.
Both the Lord’s personal coming as well as the Day’s coming are described using imminence language. Both are compared to the unpredictable, sudden arrival of a thief. Logically, they can only both be considered imminent if they occur simultaneously, which is an overlooked point in the Bible prophecy community and is the subject of my book The Missing Key. For an overview of this topic of the dual imminence of the Rapture and broad Day, see this article. (Link)
So the Rapture is signless, but once it occurs, that’s when the signs do begin. This judgment period of the broad Day leads into Daniel’s seventieth week, which has a measurable chronology expressed both here in Matthew 24 and in Daniel 9:27. The signs allow those on the earth during that time to understand where they are in the timing sequence. For example, once the great abomination of desolation sign occurs, Israel will be able to know that the Lord’s physical coming at the end of the Tribulation is around three and a half years away.
But to the contrary, the Church is never told to calculate the Rapture from those signs. The Rapture precedes this time period, and we are never instructed to attempt to bypass imminence by pretending we can infer the closeness of the Day of the Lord through alleged signs-watching. This is not a scriptural instruction nor practice. In fact, as we have seen thus far, it is contra-biblical. One cannot watch for both Jesus and signs. If signs are expected first, then Jesus is not imminent.
Another misunderstood aspect of this debate involves the consistent exhortations toward eschatological “watchfulness.” Sign-watchers often say, “Jesus told us to watch, so we must watch the signs.” But that is not what “watch” means in eschatological passages. In fact, it requires the opposite understanding since “watchfulness” for the Lord’s return is typically paired with an imminence context. Watching means spiritual alertness, readiness, sobriety, and faithfulness in light of the Lord’s possible any-moment return. It does not mean decoding current events. So the entire point of the need for continual watchfulness is due to the fact that the Lord can return at any moment completely suddenly and without signs.
Watchfulness is often linked with the thief analogy (Matthew 24:36-44 et al.). When Jesus compares His coming to a thief in the night, the point is not that believers should watch for clues that the thief is near. The point is precisely the opposite: the thief, by definition, comes unexpectedly. There are no signs that pertain to the surprise arrival of a thief. The homeowner does not know when the thief will come. Therefore, he must always be ready. To say, “watching means watching for signs,” actually destroys the thief imagery. If signs announce the thief’s arrival, then the coming is not thief-like!
Jesus’ “watchfulness” commands are also routinely paired with the equivalent imagery of the surprise arrival of a master of the house (Luke 12:35-50, et al.). The instruction is for the servants to be constantly watching for the unknown time of the master’s coming. But if prerequisite signs must appear first, then the servants do not need to be ready until those signs appear. But just like the thief example, Jesus’ point here also is that the master will come at an unexpected hour. The command to watch is a command to live in perpetual readiness for Him, not to postpone expectancy until signs arrive.
Hebrews 10:25 is another passage often misused: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”
Some argue this proves the Church will see signs showing the Day is near. But the entire point of the admonition takes for granted that the original recipients could already “see the day approaching” in the first century prior to any so-called modern signs. The writer was not saying, “One future day, when modern prophetic signs appear and are discussed on YouTube, then begin assembling more faithfully.” No! He was instructing the direct opposite. He was telling first-century believers to persevere because the Day was already drawing near two thousand years ago without even one so-called modern sign. That language of “drawing near” is imminence language, not date-setting language.
The same is true of Romans 13:11-12: “now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” Paul was able to say that the Day of the Lord was “at hand” (imminence language) back in the first century without modern Israel, global digital currency, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, or any of the modern developments prophecy teachers often cite. Therefore, Paul was not teaching that observable end-time signs allow believers to know the Rapture is now near in a way it was not near before. He was saying that with every passing moment, believers move closer to the consummation of their salvation, which could take place at any moment. The nearness is based on imminence and the passage of time, not on headline fulfillment.
Another passage frequently cited is 1 Timothy 4:1: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.” Sign-watchers argue that this apostasy is a sign to the Church before the Rapture. But Paul does not say this apostasy is a measurable prophetic countdown to the Rapture. He says “some” will depart from the faith. That was already happening in the apostolic era, and he never associates it with being a sign only related to the time immediately prior to the Rapture.
False teaching, doctrinal defection, and spiritual deception have characterized the entire Church Age. Further, Paul provided no threshold or metric that can be objectively assessed in order to determine when the apostasy has reached a sufficient level to be considered as this sign! Therefore, even if he intended it to be understood as such, we have no objective way to apply it as a sign. Obviously, it cannot then be effectively used as one.
Further, we must question the entire presumption that this passage (and similar ones) refer to eschatology just because they include phrases like “the latter times” and “the last days.” These are not phrases that scripture uses exclusively of the times connected to the eschatological Day of the Lord. In fact, the New Testament repeatedly teaches that the “last days” began in the apostolic era and encompass the entire Church Age, not merely the final years immediately before the Rapture.
Hebrews 1:2 says God “hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” Peter applied Joel’s “last days” prophecy to Pentecost in Acts 2:16-17, and John plainly declared, “it is the last time” (1 John 2:18). Likewise, Paul said the “ends of the world are come” upon first-century believers (1 Corinthians 10:11). This means characteristics associated with the last days (such as apostasy, false teaching, scoffers, and spiritual decline) are expected characteristics of the entire Church Age, not unique signs identifying the final generation before the Rapture. Therefore, these conditions cannot function as prophetic countdown markers that nullify imminence.
So then, apostasy is a basic characteristic of the Church Age, not a prerequisite sign that must appear before the Rapture. Apostasy may intensify. It may become more visible. But no one can define how much apostasy is enough to satisfy the alleged sign. Is it 30 percent? 60 percent? 90 percent? Once again, scripture gives no measurable threshold. Obviously then, if the sign cannot be objectively measured, it cannot function as a prophetic indicator of Rapture nearness. And if it must occur before the Rapture, imminence is gone.
2 Timothy 3 (another passage often misapplied by signs-watchers) is used in a way similar to 1 Timothy 4:1. Paul says, “in the last days perilous times shall come,” followed by a description of moral and religious corruption. But Paul then tells Timothy, “from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:5). That means Timothy himself would encounter these people back in the first century. Paul was not describing a condition irrelevant until a far-off terminal generation before the Rapture. He was warning Timothy about conditions already operative in the Church Age in his day. These last-days characteristics are not Rapture prerequisites. They are moral realities of the present evil age.
Second Peter 3 and Jude are also often cited because they speak of scoffers in the last days. But again, both Peter and Jude simply address realities already or soon to be present among their readers. In another place, Jude says certain men had already crept in unawares (Jude 1:4). Similarly, John says many antichrists had already come, proving that it was already “the last time” (1 John 2:18). Scoffing, apostasy, and false teaching prove that we are in the last days broadly (the entire Church Age), not that the Rapture has suddenly become near in a way it was not near before.
The regathering of Israel is another important issue. Dispensationalists rightly recognize that Israel’s national existence is prophetically significant. Based on a multitude of scriptures (Matthew 24:15-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Revelation 12, et al.), a future Tribulation scenario requires a Jewish presence in the land, a temple context, and Jerusalem as the focal point of end-time events. Therefore, some use Israel as a sort of barometer for measuring our closeness to the Rapture. But while Israel’s modern presence in the land may be a prophetic point of interest, or even a partial fulfillment, it is not directly related to the timing of the Rapture.
Israel’s presence in the land is not a prerequisite to the Rapture unless Scripture explicitly says the Church cannot be raptured until Israel is nationally restored. It does not, and such an idea would contradict the actual teaching: imminence.
All of the prophetic excitement around Israel is legitimate until it gets turned into a Rapture timing predictor. The supposition that the Rapture is now predictably near is only inference and opinion. Not only doesn’t scripture teach this idea, but it necessarily would contradict imminence.
Israel being in the land also cannot make the Rapture “more imminent” than before, since imminence is not a concept that can “increase” or “decrease.” Definitionally, imminence already means the event is one hundred percent expected at any time. Since the word “imminent” is a non-gradable adjective, it cannot vary in intensity or degree. It is an absolute or complete descriptor, much like the adjectives “dead,” “perfect,” or “married.” One can no sooner say “the Rapture is more imminent than before” than “my dog is more dead than before.” By very definition then, imminence is not “on the accelerator,” as some prophecy “teachers” have laughably claimed.
The same principle applies to a rebuilt temple, red heifers, priestly garments, or preparations for temple worship. These may be interesting because the Tribulation involves a temple context, but the Rapture does not require the Church to see the temple rebuilt first. If the temple must be rebuilt before the Rapture, then the Rapture is not imminent. If the Rapture is imminent, then temple developments cannot be required signs. The plain fact is the Bible does not tell us how long Israel can be in the land before the Rapture happens.
Back in 1980, Bible scholar Ray Stedman rightly stated:
There is not a word in Scripture of how long Israel will be back in the land before the Lord returns. The fact that something fulfills a predicted event does not in any way set up a calendar that says we are very, very close to the return of the Lord. … No one knows, and there is not a word or hint in Scripture of how long Israel will be back in the land. It may be hundreds of years before the Lord returns. Scripture does not say. [4]
Technology arguments are also speculative. Some say the Rapture must be near because technology now exists for the mark of the beast, global surveillance, digital currency, or the worldwide viewing of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11. But the Bible never says smartphones, livestreaming, biometric IDs, or digital currency must exist before the Rapture. Those are modern inferences only. They may help us imagine how Tribulation events could unfold, but they are not biblical prerequisites.
This distinction is extremely important: prophetic points of interest are not the same as prophetic signs. A point of interest may help us understand possible future mechanisms. A sign is a biblically predicted event that must occur before another event. The Rapture has no such signs. Therefore, technological developments may be interesting, but they do not prove it is near. They offer us no predictability and therefore do not function as signs.
Some signs-watchers also appeal to Luke 21:28: “when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” They take this as an instruction to the Church to watch for signs and “your redemption” to refer to the Rapture. But again, Jesus’s reference to “these things” is to the events of the Tribulation discourse that He had just explicitly detailed (as was noted earlier in our mention of the parallel Matthew 24 discourse).
It is not the Church but the people in the judgment phase of the broad Day of the Lord who see “these things” begin to happen, and can therefore know that the climactic visible return of Christ and Kingdom deliverance is next to occur. It does not turn Tribulation signs into Church Age Rapture signs since these signs are not present until after the Church is removed.
Others appeal to Jesus’ rebuke of the unbelieving Pharisees in Matthew 16:1-3: “Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” But in context, Jesus was rebuking Israel’s leaders for failing to recognize the prophesied signs of His First Coming, which Israel (not the Church) was expected to be aware of. Why were they expected to be aware of these things? Because they were given a precise prophetic “countdown to the Messiah” in the Daniel 9:25 prophecy. In addition to that, they were also given hundreds of specific messianic prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures that would help them recognize Him when He arrived.
So, unlike the Church and the Rapture, Israel was expected to anticipate the timing of the messianic First Coming since they were actually given signs and a countdown. The Church was given neither. In fact, we were promised the direct opposite: “Be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:44). It is an embarrassingly sloppy category error to take a rebuke concerning the wicked Pharisees’ failure to recognize Messiah’s First Coming and turn it into a mandate for godly Christians to watch modern headlines for Rapture timing indicators.
The “season” argument is perhaps the most popular attempt to merge signs with imminence. Many will appeal to passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:1 (“But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you”) and argue that while no one knows the exact “day or hour,” believers can still recognize a general prophetic season through observable signs. But this reasoning quickly collapses under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
It turns out that this is the direct opposite of what Paul was actually saying in 1 Thessalonians 5. Rather than suggesting that the Thessalonians required no further instruction about the times and seasons because they already knew of certain prophetic signs, Paul’s point is actually the opposite: they had no need for additional explanation regarding the timing because the doctrine of imminence had already been made sufficiently clear to them through prior teaching – particularly through the teachings of Jesus found, for example, in the latter portion of the Olivet Discourse.
As noted earlier, beginning in verse 36 of Matthew 24, Jesus discussed the total suddenness, signlessness, and unpredictability (imminence) of the beginning of the broad period of His coming (parousia). When the similarities between 1 Thessalonians 5 and Matthew 24:36ff are noted, it becomes obvious that Paul was drawing on this teaching by Jesus in his own teaching on the imminence of the Day of the Lord. This is clear in light of his usage of many of the same idioms seen in the latter half of the Olivet Discourse (the unpredictable coming of the thief in the night, the sudden onset of judgment out of a context of routine normalcy, the simultaneous removal of the righteous and outpouring of judgment on the wicked who are left, et al.).
Since the entire point of the latter half of Jesus’s discourse was entirely predicated on imminence, then it is obvious why Paul’s Thessalonian readers would not need further elaboration from him on the issue of the timing.
But this insight of the similarities between 1 Thessalonians 5 and the latter half of the Olivet Discourse is not needed in order to arrive at this conclusion. Simple reading comprehension will suffice. Paul’s point is not easily mistakable. After referring to the Thessalonians not needing further commentary on the “times and the seasons” in verse 1, he then explicitly states in verse 2 why this is not needed: “For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”
In other words, the Thessalonians’ full awareness of the unpredictability of the timing was precisely why they needed no further explanation. Thus, it is difficult to understand how signs-watchers can so carelessly interpret this verse to mean the opposite. The proper “season” of expectancy therefore is not a future sign-based window but the entire Church Age itself. The Church has lived in the “season” of imminence ever since the Church Age began.
High watch days, feast-day speculation, and Rapture windows commit the same error. Whether one points to Pentecost, Trumpets, eclipses, blood moons, geopolitical meetings, or numerical patterns, the result is the same: expectation and attention are shifted from Christ Himself to a proposed timing clue. This is not biblical watchfulness; in fact, it blatantly violates biblical watchfulness. It is sanctified date-setting speculation by people who, like the rest of us, truly have no actual clue about the timing of the Rapture.
Some of these practices may avoid predicting the exact day but still violate imminence since the entire premise of imminence is unpredictability, while the entire premise of signs-watching is predictability. Others are worse, implying that some days are more prophetically likely for the Rapture to happen than others. For example, a “high watch day” by definition is a specific day on which date-setters do believe the Rapture is likely or definite to happen. But Jesus’ instruction was always the direct opposite: “for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:44). His promise was to come on a day we cannot predict; not a day we can predict.
The New Testament does not present the Rapture as more likely on one day than another (an idea incompatible with imminence). It presents Christ as always possible. That’s what creates the logical force of imminence. The believer is to live ready now. Not after a treaty, or after a temple, or after apostasy reaches some undefined level, or after technology develops, or after Israel achieves certain things. It is possible now!
Is there an actual purpose behind Jesus’s establishing of the doctrine of imminence? The spiritual purpose of imminence is not curiosity but consecration. Imminence produces holiness, watchfulness, comfort, endurance, and evangelistic urgency. 1 John 3:2-3 connects the hope of seeing Christ with spiritual purification: “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” The blessed hope is meant to cleanse the believer’s life, not feed prophetic sensationalism or provide so-called “prophecy teachers” with gainful employment through the YouTube monetization of false hype.
Sign-watching is not edifying, but rather is spiritually dangerous. It can create excitement, but it produces the wrong kind of excitement. It generates a temporary thrill in direct disobedience to the clear teaching of the Lord. It causes people to “watch” unbiblically. It trains Christians to live by the news cycle instead of the true blessed hope. It encourages believers to be more excited about certain days than other days.
It also produces repeated disappointment when alleged signs fail to lead to the Rapture. After enough failed “convergences,” believers either become cynical or double down on speculation, venturing further into horrible interpretive practices. Neither is healthy. It is also an awful witness to the world, bringing continual compounded shame and reproach on the Word of God and on His Church after each failed prediction.
A consistent pretribulational dispensational approach must therefore distinguish between three categories:
First, there are signs for Israel and the nations that relate to the Tribulation and Second Coming proper.
Second, there are general Church Age characteristics, such as apostasy, false teaching, moral decline, persecution, and scoffing.
Third, there are modern prophetic points of interest that may help us imagine how future prophecy could unfold but do not function as biblical signs.
Only the first category contains true prophetic signs, and those signs do not precede the Rapture of the Church, nor can they provide any timing predictors. The second category describes the expected characteristics of the present age but does not measure Rapture nearness. The third category may be interesting but is speculative, non-authoritative, and not intended to function in a predictive manner.
So then, the contradiction is both simple and unavoidable. If specific signs must occur before the Rapture can take place, then the Rapture is not truly imminent. And if the Rapture is truly imminent, then no signs can be required before it. These two propositions cannot be harmonized without redefining the word “imminent” itself. One cannot consistently claim that “Christ could come today” while simultaneously insisting that Christ cannot come until apostasy reaches a certain level, a temple is rebuilt, digital infrastructure is established, or geopolitical alignments fall into place. That is a direct contradiction between mutually exclusive ideas.
The biblical position is both simpler and far more consistent. We have one simple instruction: watch (meaning be ready) for Jesus at all times. The Church is not called to watch for signs but for the Savior Himself. Certainly, apostasy may continue to spread, the world may grow increasingly hostile to truth, technology may continue advancing, and Israel may remain central within God’s prophetic program. Yet, none of those developments function as prophetic prerequisites that must occur before Christ can come for His Church, nor can they offer timing insights.
The expectancy taught throughout the New Testament was not limited to one final generation living within a unique prophetic “window” but was the constant posture of believers throughout the entire Church Age. Christ could have come in the first century, in the tenth century, before the modern regathering of Israel, before the rise of modern technology, or before any of the developments many today treat as necessary prophetic indicators. And for that very reason, He could still come today. That is imminence! And once imminence is properly defined, sign-watching cannot be smuggled into it like a piece of unbiblical contraband by those attempting to monetize eschatology.
What we know about the Rapture from scripture is quite clear: The Rapture is certain in occurrence, uncertain in timing, and signless in expectation. The believer’s command is not to begin looking for Christ once you see some signs. The command is to watch at all times. Be ready at all times. Be faithful at all times. Be holy at all times. Be comforted at all times. Be looking for Him at all times. Because He can come at all times! The blessed hope is not a prophetic puzzle. The blessed hope is a Person! And He is still coming soon! Maranatha!
-By Michael Filipek
Sources:
[1] Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1995, p. 127.
[2] Wayne A. Brindle, “Imminence” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, eds. Tim Lahaye and Ed Hindson, Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004, p. 144.
[3] 1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary, PreceptAustin.org. (https://www.preceptaustin.org/1thessalonians_417-18 – Retrieved 10/24/23)
[4] Ray C. Stedman, transcript of spoken message “Are These the Last Days?” given June 8, 1980, RayStedman.org. (https://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/prophecy/are-these-the-last-days – Retrieved 11/28/22)
The post Imminence vs. Signs :: By Michael Filipek appeared first on Rapture Ready.
Leave a Reply