I hear this a lot, that “prewrath replaced midtrib.”
But this is not accurate.
I understand why some people may think this. For example, Zondervan’s very popular “Three Views of the Rapture” book (1984) has the pretrib, mid-trib, and post-trib. But decades later (2010) they published a second edition adding prewrath while omitting the mid-trib view. Some people also think prewrath is a “modification” of midtrib. I don’t believe it is. So people tend to assume that prewrath “replaced” mid-trib.
But one should not assume that prewrath replaced the midtrib view for the following general observations:
- Midtrib started becoming defunct before prewrath came on the scene.
- Prewath did not become popular because midtrib became defunct.
- Prewrath is actually closer to posttrib teaching than midtrib teaching.
- Defunct midtribbers tend to be more sympathetic to pretrib than prewrath (e.g. they think the rapture will occur before the Antichrist’s great tribulation).
- Prewrath gained adherents mostly from pretrib and posttrib.
So it is a coincidence that midtrib became defunct when prewath came on the scene not too long after. If midtrib had not become defunct, Zondervan would had published a “Four Views on the Rapture” book.
Of course there will always be some extant mid-trib adherents. But for all practical purposes it is a defunct view today.
So for these reasons, it is not accurate to say that prewrath replaced mid-trib. Rather, it is best to say that prewrath is a distinct view that has drawn adherents from all three positions, but mostly from pretrib and posttrib. To be sure, prewrath shares certain features with other views, but it is quite distinguishable from them.
