Page 122 - The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord

The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition
and 1 Thessalonians 4:15.”3S Archer here, of course, equated
the second coming of Christ in Matthew 24 with a midtribu-
lational rapture, which is not the usual interpretation.
Archer also built on the analog)' that the fig tree budding
in Matthew 24:32-33 is the conversion of Israel and should not
be limited to a postrapture Israel. Many, of course, do not
believe that the fig tree represents Israel but that it is rather a
natural illustration.
In reading Archer's material, we find that while he was
suggestive, he by no means proved with any solid evidence
that the Rapture is actually in the midtribulation period, and
he did not get into the problems that appear in Norman Har­
rison’s viewpoint. Some of the objections that are raised
against the midtribulational view are passed by in silence by
Archer. Apparently he did not feel that these objections have
weight.
Is the Hope of the Imminent Return
of Christ Unscriptural?
One of the important reasons pretribulationists believe
the refutation of midtribulationism is necessary is that it di­
rectly attacks the imminency of the Lord’s return for the
church much in the same way as posttribulationism does.
Midtribulationism has an added feature, however, that is
most objectionable. It sets up a definite chronology requiring
date-setting. The events of the first three and one-half years of
Daniel’s prophecy are specific. They begin with a covenant
between a Gentile ruler and Israel in which Israel is promised
protection and Palestine becomes their national home. Such a
covenant could not be a secret by its very nature, as it would
be heralded throughout Jewry and be of great interest to the
entire world. Such a covenant would, on the one hand, make
the coming of Christ impossible for three and one-half years,
according to the midtribulationist, and, on the other hand,
make an imminent coming impossible at any time prior to the
128