All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are
taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the
world because of our sins.

-Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

Critics of pretribulationism sometimes state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal development of
recent origin. They argue that the doctrine of the rapture or any semblance of it was completely
unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of John Nelson Darby. One of the most vocal and
sensational critics of the rapture is Dave MacPherson, who argues that, "during the first 18 centuries
of the Christian era, believers were never 'Rapture separaters' [sic]; they never separated the minor
Rapture aspect of the Second Coming of Christ from the Second Coming itself."1

A second critic, John Bray, also vehemently opposes a pretribulational rapture, writing, "this teaching
is not a RECOVERY of truth once taught and then neglected. No, it never was taught-for 1800
years nearly no one knew anything about such a scheme."2 More recently, pre-trib opponent Robert
Van Kampen proclaimed, "The pretribulational rapture position with its dual parousias was unheard
of in church history prior to 1830."3 In our previous issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives, I noted that
pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal has also joined the chorus.4

Christian reconstructionists have also consistently and almost universally condemned premillennialism
and pretribulationism, favoring instead, postmillen-nialism. One sample of their prolific and often
vitri-olic opposition can be seen in Gary North's derisive description of the rapture as "the Church's
hoped-for Escape Hatch on the world's sinking ship," which he, like MacPherson, believes was
invented in 1830.5

                        How to Find the Rapture in History

Is pretribulationism as theologically bankrupt as its critics profess, or are there answers to these
charges? If there are reasonable answers, then the burden of proof and historical argumentation shifts
back to the critics. Rapture critics must acknowledge and interact with the historical and theological
evidence.

Rapture critic William Bell has formulated three criteria for establishing the validity of a historical
citation regarding the rapture. If any of his three criteria are met, then he acknowledges it is "of
crucial importance, if found, whether by direct statement or clear inference." As will be seen, the
Pseudo-Ephraem sermon meets not one, but two of his canons, namely, "Any mention that Christ's
second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years," and "any
mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period."6

                      Pseudo-Ephraem's Rapture Statement

I vividly remember the phone call at my office late one afternoon from Canadian prophecy teacher
and writer Grant Jeffrey.7 He told me that he had found an ancient pre-trib rapture statement. I said,
"Let's hear it." He read the following to me over the phone:

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are
taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the
world because of our sins.

I said that it sure sounds like a pre-trib statement and began to fire at him all the questions I have
since received many times when telling others about the statement from Pseudo-Ephraem's sermon
On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.8 Grant's phone call started me on
journey through many of the substantial libraries throughout the Washington, D.C. area in an effort to
learn all I could about this historically significant statement. The more information I acquired led me
to conclude that Grant is right to conclude that this is a pre-trib rapture statement of antiquity.

                           Who is Pseudo-Ephraem?

The word "Pseudo" (Greek for false) is a prefix attached by scholars to the name of a famous
historical person or book of the Bible when one writes using that name. Pseudo-Ephraem claims that
his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306-73), considered to be the greatest figure in the
history of the Syrian church. He was well-known for his poetics, rejection of rationalism, and
confrontations with the heresies of Marcion, Mani, and the Arians. As a poet, exegete, and
theologian, his style was similar to that of the Jewish midrashic and targumic traditions and he
favored a contemplative approach to spirituality. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth
centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual father and role model. His
many works, some of doubtful authenticity, were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, Armenian,
and Latin.

It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would
have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon
on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was
"heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem."9 What is more difficult, though secondary to
the main purpose of this article, is determining the exact date, purpose, location of, and extent of
subsequent editorial changes to the sermon.10

Suggestions on the date of the writing of the original sermon range from as early as Wilhelm
Bousset's 373 date,11 to Caspari's estimation of sometime between 565 and 627.12 Paul
Alexander, after reviewing all the argumentation, favors a date for the final form similar to that
suggested by Caspari,13 but Alexander also states simply, "It will indeed not be easy to decide on
the matter."14 All are clear that it had to have been written before the advent of Islam.

                           Pseudo-Ephraem's Sermon

The sermon consists of just under 1500 words, divided into ten sections and has been preserved in
four Latin manuscripts. Three of these date from the eighth century and ascribe the sermon to
Ephraem. A fourth manuscript from the ninth century, claims not Ephraem, but Isidore of Seville (d.
636) as author.15 Additionally, there are subsequent Greek and Syriac versions of the sermon which
have raised questions regarding the language of the original manuscript. On the basis of lexical
analysis and study of the biblical citations within the sermon with Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions of
the Bible, Alexander believed it most probable that the homily was composed in Syriac, translated
first into Greek, and then into Latin from the Greek.16 Regardless of the original language, the
vocabulary and style of the extant copies are consistent with the writings of Ephraem and his era. It
appears likely that the sermon was written near the time of Ephraem and underwent slight change
during subsequent coping.

What is most significant for present-day readers is the fact that the sermon was popular enough to be
translated into several languages fairly soon after its composition. The significance of the sermon for
us today is that it represents a prophetic view of a pre-trib rapture within the orthodox circles of its
day.

The sermon is built around the three themes of the title On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the
End of the World and proceeds chronologically. The fact that the pre-trib statement occurs in
section 2, while the antichrist and tribulation are developed throughout the middle sections, followed
by Christ's second coming to the earth in the final section supports a pre-trib sequence. This
characteristic of the sermon fits the first criteria outlined by William Bell, namely "that Christ's second
coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years." Thus, phase one is
the rapture statement from section 2; the interval of 3 1/2 years, 42 months, and 1,260 days, said to
be the tribulation in sections 7 and 8; the second phase of Christ's return is noted in section 10 and
said to take place "when the three and a half years have been completed."17

                Why Pseudo-Ephraem's Statement is Pretribulational

After learning of Pseudo-Ephraem's rapture statement, I shared it with a number of colleagues. My
favorite approach was to simply read the statement, free of any introductory remarks, and ask what
they thought. Every person, whether pre-trib or not, concluded that it was some kind of pre-trib
statement. A few thought it was a statement from such pre-trib proponents like John Walvoord or
Charles Ryrie. Most noted the clear statement concerning the removal of believers before the
tribulation as a reason for thinking the statement pre-trib. This is Bell's second criteria for identifying
a pre-trib statement from the past, namely, "any mention that Christ was to remove the church from
the earth before the tribulation period." Note the following reasons why this should be taken as a
pre-trib statement:

1) Section 2 of the sermon begins with a statement about imminency: "We ought to understand
thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent [Latin "immineat"] or overhanging."18 This is
similar to the modern pre-trib view of imminency and considering the subsequent rapture statements
supports a pre-trib scenario.

2) As I break down the rapture statement, notice the following observations:

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered . . ." Gathered where? A later clause says they "are
taken to the Lord." Where is the Lord? Earlier in the paragraph the sermon speaks of "the meeting of
the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion. . ." Thus the movement is from the earth
toward the Lord who is apparently in heaven. Once again, in conformity to a translation scenario
found in the pre-trib teaching.

The next phrase says that the gathering takes place "prior to the tribulation that is to come. . ." so we
see that the event is pretribulational and the tribulation is future to the time in which Pseudo-Ephraem
wrote.

The purpose for the gathering was so that they would not "see the confusion that is to overwhelm the
world because of their sins." Here we have the purpose of the tribulation judgments stated and that
was to be a time of judgment upon the world because of their sin, thus, the church was to be taken
out.

3) Finally, the Byzantine scholar Paul Alexander clearly believed that Pseudo-Ephraem was teaching
what we call today a pre-trib rapture. According to Alexander, most Byzantine apocalypses were
concerned with how Christians would survive the time of severe persecution by Antichrist. The
normal approach given by other apocalyptic texts was a shortening of the time to three and a half
years, enabling the survival of some Christians.19 Unlike those texts, this sermon has Christians
being removed from the time of tribulation. Alexander observed:

It is probably no accident that Pseudo-Ephraem does not mention the shortening of the time intervals
for the Antichrist's persecution, for if prior to it the Elect are 'taken to the Lord,' i.e., participate at
least in some measure in beatitude, there is no need for further mitigating action on their behalf. The
Gathering of the Elect according to Pseudo-Ephraem is an alternative to the shortening of the time
intervals.20

                                  Conclusion

Regardless of what else the writer of this sermon believed, he did believe that all believers would be
removed before the tribulation-a pre-trib rapture view. Thus, we have seen that those who have said
that there was no one before 1830 who taught the pre-trib rapture position will have to revise their
statements by well over 1,000 years. This statement does not prove the pre-trib position, only the
Bible can do that, but it should change many people's historical views on the matter.

                                 ENDNOTES

1 Dave MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), 15.
For a refutation of MacPherson's charges see Thomas D. Ice, "Why the Doctrine of the
Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald," Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990):
155-68.

2 John L. Bray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, FL.: John L.
Bray Ministry, 1982), 31-32.

3 Robert Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1992), 445.

4 Thomas Ice, "Is The Pre-Trib Rapture A Satanic Deception?" Pre-Trib Perspectives (II:1;
March 1995):1-3.

5 Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, TX.: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1993), 105.

6 William E. Bell, "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian
Eschatology" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1967), 26-27.

7 For more information on the Pseudo-Ephraem statement see Grant R. Jeffrey, Final Warning
(Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1995). Forthcoming, Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice,
"The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation" Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July 1995): 300-11. Grant
R. Jeffrey, "A Pretribulational Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church" in Thomas Ice and
Timothy Demy, ed., When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on
End-Time Controversies (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1995).

8 Grant Jeffrey found the statement in Paul J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, by
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 2.10. The late Alexander found the sermon in C. P.
Caspari, ed. Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des
kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters, (Christiania, 1890), 208-20. This
German work also contains Caspari's commentary on the sermon on pages 429-72.

9 Paul J. Alexander, "The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and the
Beginnings of Joachimism," in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie
Reeves, ed. Ann Williams (Essex, U.K. : Longman, 1980), 59.

10 Paul J. Alexander, "Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources," American Historical Review
73 (1968): 1017. In this essay Alexander addresses in-depth the historical difficulties facing the
interpreter of such texts. To these difficulties, issues of theological interpretation and concern must
also be added.

11 W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1896),
33-41. An early date is also accepted by Andrew R. Anderson, Alexander's Gate: Gog and
Magog and the Enclosed Nations. Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 5.
(Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932):16-18.

12 Caspari, 437-42.

13 Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 147. This leaves the possibility that the work may
have been altered or revised prior to the date of the extant manuscripts.

14 Ibid., 145. Earlier, he writes: "All that is certain, is as Caspari pointed out, that it must have been
written prior to Heraclius' victories over Sassanid Persia, for the author talks repeatedly of wars
between Rome and Persia and such discussions do not make sense after Heraclius' victories and the
beginning of the Arab invasions" (144).

15 Ibid., 136-37. The only critical edition is Caspari's which suffers a lack of objectivity in that he
relied upon only two of the four extant manuscripts.

16 Ibid., 140-44.

17 Caspari, 219. English citations are taken from a translation of the sermon provided by Cameron
Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX.

18 Ibid., 210.

19 Alexander, 209.

20 Ibid., 210-11.