A Response To Dr. Andy Woods' Concept of the Rapture

Dr. Andy Woods of Sugar Land Bible Church published a three part series of articles entitled, “The Rapture,” on the Bible Prophecy Blog: Part 1, February 16, 2012; Part 2, March 4, 2012; Part 3, April 19, 2012.

He started his series with this statement in part 1 of his article:
“I remain astonished at the number of emails I receive from individuals who do not believe that the rapture is a biblical doctrine. Such people seem to have the idea that the whole rapture concept is manufactured by popular, sensationalistic prophecy teachers in their attempt to sell books and make money. Thus, they contend that this rapture doctrine has no biblical justification whatsoever. In order to demonstrate the rapture is truly a biblical doctrine, I am commencing a series of articles on the "Doctrine of the Rapture of the Church."

If Dr. Woods says that he has received a “number” of emails from individuals who “do not believe that the rapture is a biblical doctrine,” then, I will take him at his word. Although, I would be curious to know exactly how many emails he has received and the full context they were written in. (On a side note, I wonder how all these dissenters contacted Dr. Woods by email. His direct email address is not available on any of the web sites on him that I have searched.) Suffice it to say, I don’t know any mature and Biblically grounded Christian who does not believe in the rapture or think it’s not an important doctrine. I think any issue one would have over the rapture would have more to do with all the speculation over other end time events that will supposedly transpire after the rapture, and less to do with the actual rapture itself.

One point Dr. Woods made early on in both parts 1 and 2 his articles was that there were “ten truths” about the rapture and they can be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. However, he did not itemize what those “ten truths” are. Dr. Woods said that 4 of the 10 can be found in 1 Thess. 4:13-18. I think Dr. Woods could have better served his readers by numerically listing his perceived ten rapture truths, and make them more plain and obvious. As the article is written now, the curious reader who really wants to know what these “ten truths” is forced to cull through 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 and dig them out.

In part one of his series, Dr. Woods addressed what the rapture is and in part two he addressed when the rapture will be in terms of its relationship with other end time events. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did not speculate or predict a specific date for the rapture. However, he ended part two of his article by making the case that the Rapture and the Second Advent of Christ are two separate and distinct end time events.

Dr. Woods bases his argument on two trains of thought. His first train of thought has to do Christ’s dual role during His first coming. Dr. Woods wrote:
“Some may think it strange to divide the Second Coming of Jesus Christ into two distinct phases. Interestingly, when we go back into the Old Testament and we study various truths and prophecies related to His First Coming, we very quickly get the idea that different prophecies are saying different things. For example, Isaiah 53 describes the Messiah suffering and dying. On the other hand, Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the Messiah ruling and reigning. How could He come and suffer, and how could He come and rule and reign at the same time?”

For whatever reason, Dr. Woods thinks that those two passages of Scriptures in Isaiah need to be “harmonized.” The answer to Dr. Woods’ question is quite simple. Christ’s suffering is a pre-requisite to Him ruling and reigning. He managed to accomplish the suffering and dying part over a 3 day weekend during His first advent. Dr. Woods is assuming that Christ has to come again to rule and reign and he is assuming that Christ’s second advent will be in two phases as well when he wrote:
"The only way to harmonize these passages is to conclude that there must be two comings of Christ. There must be one coming when He comes and dies to pay the penalty for the sins of the world and another coming of Jesus to rule and to reign. So we can conclude by studying the Old Testament that the coming of Christ takes place in phases. In essence, this same approach leads one to the teaching of the rapture. The New Testament describes the Second Coming of Christ in two different ways. Thus, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will also take place in two phases."

The ruling and reigning part has already begun from the moment the suffering and dying part was accomplished. The Lord can just as effectively rule and reign from heaven as He can here on earth on earth. After all, He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient and is capable of multi-tasking.

Dr. Woods’ second train of thought for a future two-phase coming of Christ is his proof-texting of sixteen scriptures that were sub-divided into two categories, the rapture and the second advent. Here are the four Scripture references he cited to support his notion of a first phase rapture: Jn. 14:1 – 4; 1Th. 1:8 – 10; 1Th. 4:15 – 18; Tit. 2:12 – 13.

And, here are the twelve Scripture references he cited to support his notion of a second phase second advent: Job 19:25; Is. 11:4; Zec. 14:4; Mt. 23:37 – 39; Mt. 24:31; Mt. 25:31 – 46; Ac. 1:9 – 12; 2Th. 1:7 – 8; 2Th. 2:8; Jude 14; Re. 1:7; Re. 19:14 – 15.

The only assertion Dr. Woods made without referencing a scripture was when he wrote in the fourth paragraph of part two: “By contrast (to the rapture), at the Second Advent of Christ there will not be an instantaneous resurrection.”

Dr. Woods is a Pre-Tribulational, Premillennial Dispensationalist and the cornerstone of his eschatology is the belief that the sequence of end time events will begin with the rapture of the Church, followed by a seven year tribulation, followed by the second coming of Christ with the Church followed by Christ’s millennial reign in Jerusalem. On the surface, Dr. Woods made a seemingly compelling argument by backing up most of his assertions with a Scripture reference. However, NONE of the Scriptures that he cited validate support the notion of the rapture being followed by a seven year tribulation, and then a thousand year reign of Christ here on earth.

The key thing to remember here is that Dr. Woods’ two-phase coming of Christ argument is only as strong as his Dispensational eschatology. If he cannot make an air tight argument in favor of a seven year tribulation period followed by Christ’s physical thousand year reign in Jerusalem, then his two-phase coming of Christ argument does not mean anything. Making an argument for just a two-phase coming alone will not cut it. What if Christ does return in two-phases with an exclusive rapture appearance for just the Church in the first phase, and a full appearance for everyone else in the second just as Dr. Woods asserted? But, the two-phases are only a few hours or a day a part as opposed to seven years apart? And, there is no anti-christ, Armageddon or rebuilt temple in Jerusalem? Then what?

Dr. Woods has taken a deductive approach to proving is case for a two-phase coming. It is quite obvious that he did not take into account the contexts the of the Scripture references that he cited. Take for example the three passages of Scripture he use from the Olivet discourse (Mt. 23:37 – 39; Mt. 24:31; Mt. 25:31 – 46;). If one were to read those three passages in a vacuum, one might be convinced that Jesus was talking about an event that will occur way off in the distant future. However, the two passages of Scripture that Dr. Woods conveniently did not cite were:
Mt. 23:36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
Mt. 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

On two separate occasions during the Olivet discourse, Jesus emphasized that the audience whom he was talking to would see the events that he was talking about. He was not describing events that a generation 2,000 years into the future would see.

Dr. Woods used Rev. 1:7 to make the case for the Second Advent and how it will be visible to the entire world. Yet, he conveniently ignored the two Scriptures prior to verse 7 that read:
Re. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Re. 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Do the phrases, “soon to take place,” and “time is near” sound like an event that will be taking place more than 2,000 years into the future?

Dr. Woods cited Acts 1:9 - 12 to support Christ’s second advent. Acts 1:9 reads: 1:9 “After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.” Acts 1:11 reads:
“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Then, Dr. Woods goes on to cite Rev. 19:14 for the same reason and reads as follows: “The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.”

If Acts 1:11 says that Jesus will come back “in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Then that begs a question. Is Acts 1:9 and Rev. 19:14 talking about the same event? Where in Acts 1:9 does it say anything about “armies of Heaven,” following Jesus while riding on “white horses” dressed in fine “white and clean” linen when Jesus taken up in a cloud?

Dr. Woods dedicated most of part three of his series defending the notion that an idea can still be Biblical from a conceptual standpoint even if the Bible does not convey the idea literally. The word, “rapture” falls into this kind of scenario. Even though the word, “rapture” is not mentioned in the Bible, the general idea of the rapture can be supported conceptually. Dr. Woods also use the concept of the Trinity to further illustrate his point. The word, “Trinity” also is not mentioned in the Bible, yet the idea can be supported conceptually.

I do not disagree with Dr. Woods’ assertion that an idea can be Biblical even if it is not literally articulated in the Bible as long as that idea can be supported conceptually. However, I challenge him to make a conceptual argument for a seven year tribulation. The Bible literally does not mention a seven year tribulation period, much less that the rapture will precede it. So where is the conceptual argument for that? I would like to read an article from Dr. Woods making the case for a seven year tribulation period. If Dr. Woods cannot make a Biblical case for a post rapture, seven year tribulation period, then its game over for his three articles on the rapture. Those three articles containing over 2,500 words would be nothing more than a meaningless red herring.

If Dr. Woods is really interested in refuting objections of those who have an issue with his brand of eschatology, I would suggest that he engage in a live formal debate with someone who holds a different eschatological view. This should not be a problem for one who (in addition to being a Pastor), is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas and has earned a BA, JD, ThM, and PhD. Ideas that are not worth defending are not worth believing and one cannot defend an idea with any credibility by erecting and knocking down a straw man.