There are seven primary arguments that are given for believing that the rapture will be “Pre-Tribulation.” They create the acronym, “pretrib,” and they are:
1) Place, 2) Removal of the restrainer, 3) Exemption from Divine Wrath, 4) The Twenty-four Elders, 5) Rapture vs. Second Coming, 6) Imminence, and 7) Blessed Hope.
This post will examine the fourth argument: The Twenty-Four Elders.
The Argument: In Rev 4, John is brought into Heaven to see the events of the end times. This comes right after the letter to the 7 Churches. This, we are told, is the transition out of the Church age via the Rapture, and John is caught up into Heaven (a Rapture-like event), and from that position John sees all the final events of the Tribulation.
The Analysis: If you accept that John’s solo trip to Heaven (no mention of being in the clouds with Jesus, no other Christians, etc) is a type of the Rapture, then this argument starts to look good for the Pre-trib position. It comes at a convenient place in the book of Revelation (right after the letter to the 7 churches, which some see as the Church Age), and in heaven John sees the 24 elders (and those elders look a lot like the Church, with crowns, garments, human characteristics, as you might expect). Also, many people note that the view of the Earth from that point in Rev forward is apparently missing the Church.
A couple issues here, otherwise this is an interesting point. First, there’s no direct indication that this is the Rapture, it’s inferred by the reader. For example, John is called for the stated purpose of showing him things, yet the Rapture doesn’t have that. No mention of Jesus coming in the clouds, etc. Some have made the argument that because there’s a voice saying, “Come up here” that this must be the Rapture. However, those exact same words (even in the original Greek) are used in Rev 11:12 to call to Heaven the 2 witnesses. And in that case it mentions their gathering in the clouds! And it happens exactly 3 1/2 days after they are killed (would the mid-trib people have a case there?). This account looks much more like the Rapture than Rev 4, so why isn’t that the Rapture?
Second, although the Rev 4 account comes after the letter to the 7 churches, there’s no direct indication that those Churches represent the “Church age.” That letter, sent to the Churches, appears to be directed to real churches that actually existed at the time of the letter. Also, there are no other traits of the Rapture in Rev 4. It talks about the 24 elders, but they were apparently already there when John arrives. John himself doesn’t have a crown. (Intellectual Honesty Note: as I’ve argued before, my own argument here is weak because omission of information does not automatically mean that the opposite is true. It doesn’t say whether John has a crown – but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have one).
The final observation is this: the book of Revelation, from the point that John enters this vision of Heaven, is apparently not chronological (in John’s vision he refers to several one-time events multiple times: all the islands are sunk twice, Babylon falls and is never inhabited again twice… Obviously John is outside of time and is viewing and recording events from different perspectives, including the different perspectives of time). The result is that even if Rev 4 is a type of the Rapture, the timeline is questionable.
The Conclusion: This is an interesting and clever observation, but not conclusive. The case would have to be made that the Churches receiving the letter “represent” the entire Church age; Rev 4 would have to be demonstrated to be chronologically after that “Church Age,” and finally the Rev 4 event doesn’t look as much like the Rapture as Rev 11, which happens well into Daniel’s 70th week.
Prev: Exemption from Divine Wrath Next: Rapture vs. Second Coming
The Rapture Chronicles Series 
I find it interesting that an argument is that the church is not seen on earth, but the problem is, John is not looking at the earth in the next few chapters. He is describing heaven, and the church is conspicuous by its absence when he describes the view around the throne. The twenty-four elders are not a spiritual representation of the church for individual non-resurrected souls are seen under the altar, thereby showing that the people are all represented individually, not by some symbolic representation. The church actually appears on the sea of glass when they come out of the tribulation as martyrs. They are in fact the martyrs that those under the altar were told to wait for. As to the identity of the twenty-four elders, I believe they are the order of Melchizadek. Everything in the tabernacle and temple was a direct copy of the heavenly temple according to God’s specifications. There were twenty-four courses of priests in the temple. It makes sense, since when you read the description of Melchizadek, the description is not one of a human. He has no birth, no death, no parents, no descendants and remains a priest forever (although a retired one). Can any human do that? He is also not alone but belongs to an order of priests. God has never left man without an intermediary between Himself and man. Would he not have a special creation of priests in His temple to do His service up there? Christ is the final priest in that order and His priesthood is a heavenly one, not earthy. Does that not indicate that Melchizadek’s and His order’s were also a heavenly priesthood. Just as angels can manifest on earth, why could not these priests also go between earth and heaven? Would they not have filled the gap of a priesthood between Adam and the Levites? It answers all the questions of the mysterious description about Melchizadek, how Christ could be of the same order, as well as who these elders (a name given to retired priests) are. They are kings (Melchizadek was a king of righteousness (can any human claim that?), hence the crowns, they are priests (Christ is both a priest and will be king), they are retired priests so sit before the throne rather than being about priestly business. It really answers all the questions, doesn’t it?
Also noticed that you put the resurrection of the two witnesses at the mid-point. It can be shown scripturally that they die at the end of the 1260 day period that is the second half, so that wouldn’t work for mid-tribs.
You call that an argument? You list one, but there is no argument. All this offers is speculation, conjecture, assumption, and opinion. That is the study of the pretrib view… assumption and conjecture. If you actually READ the Word it tells you that Jesus Himself DECLARES that He is STILL coming like a thief in Rev. 16:15 for those who are watching at the end of the bowl judgements. No assumption, opinions, conjecture, or speculation needed. What is your preference? Assumption or truth?