John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 3)
Image
![](/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/2024/media_images/ai-generated-8600648_1920.jpg?itok=_k0unSYN)
In Part 2 of this series, we presented four options for understanding what Jesus meant at John 14:1-3:
![John 14: Four Options Table](https://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/four-options-overview.png)
We also suggested a grading scale for evaluating these options:
- Grade A: Explicit teaching.
- Grade B: Implicit teaching.
- Grade C: A principal or logical conclusion—an inference.
- Grade D: A guess or speculation.
- Grade E: Poor or non-existent support.
Now, let’s look at Option 1:
![John 14: Option 1 Table](https://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/rapture-option1table.png)
Option 1 can only be maintained by heavily freighting John’s words with presuppositions from elsewhere. This position is almost universally proposed by dispensational premillennialists.
- It requires Jesus to return twice; (a) once for believers to transport them to heaven, and (b) again to imprison Satan and establish His kingdom (the event historically referred to as the second coming). Unfortunately, John 14:1-3 itself does not explicitly or implicitly support a two-stage return, nor does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which we already examined.
- It requires us to see a hard distinction been (a) the ethnic people of Israel, and (b) the Jews and Gentiles which comprise “the church.” Because of this distinction, advocates read the Old Testament prophesies about the tribulation as a time of trouble specifically for the ethnic people of Israel—the “church” is not involved. Therefore, Jesus must transport the church away beforehand, and so this passage is about that escape. However, this passage and its context says nothing about that.
Option 1 advocates offer several arguments for their position:
Argument 1
If this passage were about Jesus’ second coming, then He would have mentioned the cataclysmic events of Matthew 24,1 so He must be talking about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
Jesus already discussed those events, and nobody repeats every detail of a subject whenever a topic comes up. John’s gospel is famous for covering different ground than the other three,2 he wrote 20 or 30 years later than Matthew,3 and John 14 occurs in a different place in the timeline of Jesus’ ministry. In short, this is a weak argument from silence.
Argument 2
Matthew 24 never mentions “my Father’s house,” but John 14:1-3 does.4 Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
This wrongly assumes “my Father’s house” must refer to a fixed place “up there,” in heaven. This need not be the case. It’s also another weak argument from silence, for the reasons listed above.
Argument 3
The persecution at John 15 is not characteristic of the tribulation.5 Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
However, in John 15 Jesus is not speaking about the tribulation but a different subject entirely. This objection falls.
Argument 4
In John 14:1-3, Jesus never mentions a return with a trumpet blast accompanied by angels who will gather the elect from the four corners of the earth (Mt 24:30-31). Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.6
Again, this argument assumes that each biblical author will repeat everything another author says about the same topic. This is not the way human communication works. There is no place in scripture where any author incorporates everything everyone else has said on a particular subject. John was not writing a prophecy encyclopedia nor was Jesus lecturing on the topic—John was memorializing Jesus’ farewell address.
Argument 5
If John 14:1-3 is about the second coming, that means believers will endure the great tribulation. But the tribulation is for the ethnic people of Israel, not the church. Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.7
Perhaps this is true, but neither this passage nor its context says anything about that. This is an objection from complete silence. If “the church” (as dispensationalists understand it) is not snatched away from earth before the tribulation, then it will be here during this terrible time. So, one writer suggests it would have been “cruel” of Jesus to not mention the tribulation at John 14:1-3 if He intended “the church” to endure it—that, if true, Jesus had “kept” this information from them.8 A case can be made (and has been made over the centuries) that Matthew 24 already explains everything—just not along dispensationalist lines.
Arguments from silence are weak—and so is this one.
Argument 6
The disciples have a heavenly hope for union with Christ, not an earthly one.9 Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
This is a conclusion, not an argument. The hope of all believers is community with God—Abraham was “looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God,” (Heb 11:10). This is the heavenly country (that is, the “country” with heavenly attributes10) that arrives at Rev 21-22, which contains the city which God has prepared for all believers (Heb 11:16). Community with God in renovated physical bodies (1 Cor 15:50-55) in a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 22)—that is our future.
Argument 7
John 14:1-3 requires the saints “to dwell for a meaningful time with Christ in His Father’s house.”11 Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
Again, this makes the mistake of assuming “my Father’s house” must be a fixed place “up there” in heaven. This is incorrect. It also overlooks the solution that Jesus in John 14:1-3 simply refers to believers being in the Father’s presence (i.e., His “house”) upon their deaths.
Argument 8
John 14:1-3 parallels 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which is about the pre-tribulational rapture. Therefore, John 14:1-3 is about the pre-tribulational rapture.12
Unfortunately, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 doesn’t explicitly or implicitly teach any such thing, as I’ve discussed.
Argument 9
The “Father’s house” is in heaven, not on earth.13 Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.
If “the Father’s house” truly cannot be here on earth, then by this logic Jesus’ parents did not find Him in His Father’s “house” when He was 12 years old (Lk 2:49), and the Christian community is not a “spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:5) or God’s “building” (1 Cor 3:9) or His “temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17), and God’s “tent” or “dwelling place” will not be here on earth with His people (Rev 21:3), and the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will not be the new Jerusalem’s “temple” (Rev 21:22). Fortunately, the “Father’s house” is a figurative shorthand that refers to “the Father’s presence” in various contexts.
Argument 10
John 14:1-3 is about believers going to heaven, whereas at the second coming Jesus is returning to earth. Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.14
This is a reasonable argument. However, it’s undercut by two weaknesses. First, once again “my Father’s house” is not tied to a fixed place “up there,” but is a figurative reference to God’s personal presence wherever He might be. Second, just because the text suggests Jesus transports believers away from here, it doesn’t give a blank check to a complicated two-stage return for Christ that’s dependent on speculation from elsewhere in scripture. There is a much simpler option—that believers “go to heaven” when they die.15
All told, evidence supports a “D” rating for John 14:1-3 being about the pre-tribulational rapture. It’s a perspective build entirely on guesswork from elsewhere. It swamps the text and freights it with a load its words cannot reasonably bear. This doesn’t mean the pre-tribulational rapture is false—it just means it isn’t in this passage.
Arguments from silence can be helpful supports that prop up explicit and implicit bible teaching from elsewhere. They’re backing vocals that ought never be trotted out to carry the entire concert. So it is with John 14:1-3.
Notes
1 “… the wars and rumors of wars; the famines, pestilences and earthquakes; the great tribulation; the false prophets, etc. of which there is not a word in all of the Upper Room Discourse,” (Carl Armerding, “That Blessed Hope,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 111:142 (April 1954), p. 150).
2 See, for example, I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), pp. 491f.
3 David deSilva tentatively suggests a date in the early 70s for Matthew (An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2018), p. 215). N.T. Wright and Michael Bird offer up a date between 80-100 (The New Testament in Its World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), p. 579), while Grant Osbourne suggests a date in the mid-to-late 60s (Matthew, in ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), pp. 43-44). John’s Gospel is typically dated in the late 90s, shading to perhaps very, very early in the second century (cp. deSilva, Introduction, pp. 343-344).
4 Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 150.
5 Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 150.
6 Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 151.
7 Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 151. “And it is this purpose which distinguishes the coming of the Lord as promised in John 14 from His coming as the Son of man as predicted in Matthew 24.”
8 Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pre-tribulational Rapture,” in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement (Plymouth: Central Seminary Press, 2023), p. 251.
9 John Walvoord, “The Future Work of Christ Part I: The Coming of Christ for His Church,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 123:489 (January 1966), p. 13). “This was an obvious contradiction of their previous hope that Christ was going to reign on earth and quite different in its general character. It indicated that their hope was heavenly rather than earthly and that they were going to be taken out of the earth to heaven rather than for Christ to come to the earth to be with them.”
“In making the pronouncement in John 14, Christ is holding before His disciples an entirely different hope than that which was promised to Israel as a nation. It is the hope of the church in contrast to the hope of the Jewish nation. The hope of the church is to be taken to heaven; the hope of Israel is Christ returning to reign over the earth,” (Walvoord, The Rapture Question, revised and enlarged (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), p. 71).
10 In the sentence, “heavenly” is an attributive genitive: νῦν δὲ κρείττονος ὀρέγονται τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐπουρανίου.
11 Richard Mayhue, “Why A Pretribulational Rapture?” in Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 13:2 (Fall 2002), p. 246.
12 Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” pp. 151-152; Mayhue, “Pretribulational Rapture,” p. 246; Pratt, “The Case for the Pre-tribulational Rapture,” in Dispensationalism Revisited, pp. 250-251.
13 Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 71. “Christ returns to the earthly scene to take the disciples from earth to heaven. This is in absolute contrast to what takes place when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on earth.”
14 Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 5 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), p. 164.
15 Walvoord dismisses this as “spiritualizing,” which is a common slur in the dispensationalist lexicon (Rapture Question, p. 71).
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 776 views
My view is that John 14 can be said to be “consistent with” the Rapture, but it isn’t very strong evidence of it. There are just too many ambiguities. Jesus is clearly preparing the 12 for His departure by teaching some truths that will be comforting in the future. Equally clear, they will see Him again in a “place” that He is personally involved in readying for them. So, they will not be far from His mind, though temporarily not in His presence in the way they had grown accustomed to.
Beyond that, certainty drops off rapidly on the particulars of when and where. I choose to focus on the certain part, which is quite beautiful, especially considering what Jesus knows is going to happen between that moment and “I go to prepare a place.” Hebrews 12:2 comes to mind.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Although this series presents good analysis of John 14, the conclusions do not affect beliefs about a pre-Trib Rapture since these verses are not major support verses, even though some claim they are. Aaron's comment about "consistent with" fits what I said in an earlier post on the series.
1 Thessalonians 4 describes an event which will occur in the future (now called the Rapture). For those who believe in a literal 7 year Great Tribulation, the main views are before, during, or after the Tribulation. (Strange that those who deny a literal Tribulation, usually because they interpret nonliterally/spiritually, do not deny a literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4.) If you believe that you will live through at least part of the Tribulation before the Rapture, I wonder how you are preparing for that experience. I also wonder why you expect Christ to come at any time since that coming is at least 3 1/2 years away.
The fundamental problem between Dispensational and other theological systems is the extent you apply literal interpretation, especially to prophecy. Once the subjective interpretation starts, certainty decreases and God's promises become very nebulous.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
In his 1961 book, Prophecy for Today, J. Dwight Pentecost says this about John 14:1-3,
In John 14, Christ has given us only the fact that He is going to come again to take us to Himself. Of the program, the method, and the time, He said nothing.
As for Tyler's contention in this series, that John 14:1-3 is a text generally used by dispensationalists in support of a specifically pre-trib rapture, it seems that Pentecost disagrees. As others have noted, there is nothing in John 14 to exclude the pre-trib position, so I'm not really sure what is the goal of this series.
Many of the points in this article are dealt with by John Pratt in the article mentioned in footnote #8. Obviously Tyler disagrees with Pratt on those points, but I don't see that he has offered any compelling reason to adopt his views instead of the alternatives. It is clear that none of these are new arguments for or against the pre-trib rapture.
Those times I have heard John 14 used to support the rapture it has been because the text seems to imply an immediate and unannounced return of Christ. Many of those who hold to the rapture equate the rapture with any text or writing that speaks of Christ's imminent return. If anyone from an ancient church father to Charles Spurgeon says that Christ may come at any time, he is assumed by them to believe in their view of a pretribuation rapture.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
There are reasons for that. The second advent, in the full and complete sense of the term, has all sorts of signs attached to it that are to see as having been fulfilled. So when a church father, or whoever, says “at any time,” he seems to be implying some aspect of the return that does not require that those signs have all occurred. (What would that be?)
But that does assume a logical/systematic consistency that is, in some cases, overly optimistic. People can express a view that ‘implies’ this or that in the context of a system, but that is reasoning/systematizing they haven’t examined. And in that case they don’t mean to imply those things at all (though they do logically follow).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion