Rapture = Second Coming?

Thanks p-nut. Can I call you that? Just makes it a bit more interesting for me!

Do not think Ed is going to debate that Israel is also called elect. I was confused on that at one time in Matt 24. Now I am just confused about most everything else!

 

No problem on the p-nut, kinda cute, just like me

 

So in Christ there is Jew and Greek after all?

 

Reading Matthew 24 is not difficult for us. Whose, Matthew 24 written for? Does Christ saying 'Jews' or 'Israel' in the context of chapter 24? Does the word, 'ye','you' -19 times in the context of chapter 24 speak to us?

Of course, the word, 'rapture' is not find in Matt 24. Also, word, 'rapture' is not find anywhere in the Bible. But, Early Christians understood Matt. 24:31 speak of the gathering elect shall be at Christ's coming shall be after the tribulation -Matt. 24:29-30.

Matt. 24:4-14; 32-34 telling us, that we shall see the signs appearing show us, Christ's coming draw closer, but, we do not know when day or hour, Christ's comes, only his Father knows. We always be watch and be ready for His coming.

The context of Matthew 24 focus only one future coming and the end of the world. No way, you can see Christ saying there will be two comings anywhere in this chapter.

All of you should know better than that.

None of this context of Matthew 24 saying Christ shall come before tribulation.

The signs of Matt. 24:4-14 already have been happening throughout all centuries, even Christians(Church) are still present on earth. Matthew 24 cannot be teaching of pretribulational. Because Christ does not saying, he shall come before tribulation in this context. Clear, he tells us, he will come after tribulation, all baptists know this. Even, Ed Edwards knows.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Ed,

I am in full agreement with the sequence of your timeline. I am pre-trib and pre-mill. I would however suggest one additional element between the rapture and the trib – the signing of the treaty of Dan 9. The seventieth week begins not with the rapture, but with the covenant between the prince that shall come and the Jews. The rapture and the signing may be very close in time, but the is no specific reference to rapture in Dan 9, or as I still contend, Matt 24. I do believe that attempting to use Matt 24 to buttress the pretrib position is a weakness in your line of reasoning. It really confuses Israel and the Church (will address your two church idea in a moment).

Did appreciate your posting of much previously written material. Did not see a response to much of what I said though. Would repeat what I asked earlier, what in Matt 24 suggests rapture rather than 2nd coming to earth? I agree with another post that the church is not anywhere in Matt 24.

I agree with churchmouseguy. How can you justify your two church idea?

Quote: “I've been teaching that God has two Churches of people (and from the viewpoint of eternity, they are the same): 1. Jewish Israeli elect saints 2. Church Age born-again redeamed gentile (mostly) Christian elect saints”

From what viewpoint are they NOT the same? The redeemed of the Trib period are believers, but there is never any indication that they are part of the Church! (Don’t worry, I am not going Baptist Bride on this.) Tribulation saints are just that, trib saints. They are never said to be part of the church, the body of Christ, NOWHERE.

Quote: “1. Jewish Israeli elect saints: who were beheaded because of their testimony; resurrected at the end of Daniel's 70the week (AKA: Tribulation Period) 2. Church Age born-again redeamed gentile (mostly) Christian elect saints: who sit on thrones and judge during the physical
Millinnial Kingdon of Jesus; resurrected (some raptured) at the beginning of Daniel's 70the week”

I agree with this interpretation, or at least the portion quoted. I DO NOT AGREE that those in group 1 are part of the church! I agree that the Tribulation saints and the saints of the Church reign together with Christ in a literal MK. What in this text, or any text says that the Trib saints are part of the church? They are under the altar after their death in the Trib. While church saints are part of the Bride of Christ, already in Heaven for the Bema seat and the marriage supper. Does part of the Bride not get there till after the Trib? How can these be part of the church, when you admit that the church age is complete prior to the beginning of the 70th week?

Quote: “I know this is NOT your standard pretrib as taught by Schofield.”

Why does everyone here keep spelling it “Schofield”? I am looking at my “SCOFIELD” Bible right now (I am on my fourth, I have worn out three, one of the was the New Scofield) and there is no “H” in the name. I have some other works by Cyrus Ingersol Scofield as well. HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT SPELLING ANYWHERE BUT ON THIS DB.

Anyway, whether or not it is “standard” is of little concern to me. If Scofield were still alive, I have no doubt that he would modify his positions on a number of issues. ALL GOOD THEOLOGIANS embrace the motto: “semper reformanda” – always reforming.

I do not consider myself a theologian, but I am constantly refining and adjusting my understanding, interpretation, and presentation of the Word of God to more consistently reflect the whole “counsel of God”. Passages that do not fit with our theology must not be ignored! Our theology must be continually adjusted to fit ALL of the Word. It is not acceptable to ignore a passage or an interpretation that does not fit our theology.

L.S. Chafer (founder and early president of DTS) taught that there were two New Covenants - one for Israel and one for the Church. C. C. Ryrie once held that view. I do not believe that any of the DTS theologians still attempt to argue for that interpretation. A recent article in the Chafer Theo. Sem. Journal directly refutes the position.

My Point??? We must constantly adjust our theology to better fit the Word of God, not vice versa. And I DO believe that you fully agree with me on this point.

 

Deafpostrib.

Yes Matt 24 is to us and for us. BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT US!!! It is about Israel as noted in Ed’s discussion of the three questions that begin the discourse. The church did not even exist yet. By church I mean a body of believers baptized by the Holy Spirit on the basis of their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Jesus had not died yet, the middle wall of partition was still intact, the Mosaic Law was still in effect, Jews and Gentiles were not yet part of the same body. The only way to see the church in Matt 24 is to allergorize or spiritualize all, or at least most, of the OT covenant promises to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You must replace Israel with the church and contend that God will not literally fulfill the promises to the Patriarchs or to David. How can you do that when the gospels begin with the promise that Jesus would indeed reign on the throne of His father, David?

Here is the RULE: If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense. If you look for an allegorical sense when the literal sense makes sense, you distort the plain sense of the text. Someone has well said that the only time you look for a figurative/allegorical sense is when the literal sense is absurd and an allegorical interpretation is the only way to make sense of a passage. It is BAD hermeneutics to interpret a passage based on your theology. Rather, your theology must be adjusted to fit the clear words of the text. I know you believe this, you stated it in an earlier post. What do you do with Israel? Give all of her covenants to the church?


I DO NOT AGREE with Ed that you have to read Matt 24 with the eyes of hope. I believe that you have to read it with a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. Take it all just like it reads! Matthew 24 NEVER mentions the church. However, Luke does in his account of the Olivet Discourse.

YOU MUST COMPARE SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE.

Jesus tells us (in Luke’s account) that Jerusalem will be compassed about with armies and laid desolate (Luke 21:20, compare Matt 23:37-39). He says that the Jews will be scattered throughout the earth “until the times of the Gentiles” be fulfilled (Luke 21:24). The Church is in the “times of the Gentiles” right now. But there will come a day when the “fullness of the Gentiles” is complete and God will again focus on the Nation of Israel according to the New Covenant (Jer 31:31 ff. w/ Rom 11:25-27). THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE CHURCH IN MATT 24 and only brief reference to the “times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21.

BUT CLEARLY NOTE, THAT THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES ARE FOLLOWED BY THE SALVATION, GATHERING, REDEMPTION of ALL ISRAEL! JESUS DOES RETURN TO THE EARTH AFTER THE TRIBULATION TO DELIVER ISRAEL AND SET UP THE MK. He comes in the air prior to the Trib for His saints.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE WHO INTERPRETED MATT 24, LUKE 21, ROM 9-11, and REV 20 in a LITERAL GRAMMATICAL HISTORICAL MANNER WHO HELD TO ANYTHING BUT A PRETRIB RAPTURE POSITION!!!

As AKI said earlier, one’s view of Israel and the Church will definitely determine his position on the Kingdom and the 2nd coming. This is foundational.

Deafpostrib, I do not mean to appear to be dismissing your extensive posts lightly. Just have not time to deal adequately with for now. Maybe start on the list of verses on page one later today or tonight. I DO APPRECIATE THE OBVIOUS AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS. AND I DO APPRECIATE YOUR OBVIOUS SINCERITY IN CONTENDING FOR YOUR POSITION. I DO SEE SOME ERRORS IN YOUR INTERPRETATION AND WILL ADDRESS LATER, IN SPECIFIC DETAIL.

In HIS Service, and yours,
RJP

 

Ed,

You say,

Where did you the idea comes from?

You seem do not understand the purpose of Calvary.

I urge you to read whole Ephesians chapter 2 and Galatians chapter 3 both talking about Calvary. Eph. 2:12-22 teaching us that Christ already reconciled both Jew and Gentile unity together at once through Calvary 2,000 years ago, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Both are same under the Lord according Romans 10:12.

God does not replace 'Israel' over Church after rapture. God only have one family from the beginning to the end. Christ already reconciled all Jews, Gentiles saints from the beginning to the end together through him by Calvary at once.

'Times of Gentiles fulfilled'. I understand of this speak of the times of mankind era, also, it speaks of heathens or unbelievers persecute against God's saints.

Matthew 24 & Luke 21 do not stress focus on 'Jews' only, Christ was speak to the believers, same as He speaks to us throughout all centuries till Christ comes.

I believe Christians(Gentiles) are now dwell in Israel right now, when Antichrist revealed, they shall flee out of Jerusalem and around Israel, hide from Antichrist and his army - Matt. 24:15-21 & Luke 21:20-24. Great tribulation shall be begin with in Jerusalem, then, it will spread over the world.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

It take a willing suspension of disbelief to deal with some of the illogic of the pre-tribulation doctrine. Where does it say that only Jews can be saved during the Tribulation? Wouldn't that require a change in the nature of God?

Sometimes I think that pre-tribbers overestimate the power of the Anti-Christ. Afterall, even Hitler with German attention to detail missed Corrie Ten Boom. And Stalin missed Alexander Solzhenitsyn. And Haman missed Mordecai. It will be possible to live through the Tribulation and not take the mark of the beast. It will also be possible to be captured and tortured and die without taking the mark of the beast.

The doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture is too illogical and too confusing. It raises too many problems that it cannot answer. It is a shame that such a doctrine became so widespread in the last two centuries in American theological thinking.

It is time to re-examine this doctrine in only the light of Scripture.

 

Ed,

What about 'multitude' of Revelation 7:9-17? Who are they?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

The pre-trib rapture is conditional. Not all believers will be accounted worthy. It is very possible that any one of us may be tempted to take the mark if we were not watching and waiting for Christ when the rapture occured.

 

Deafposttrib, Church Mouse Guy, and James,

A few of Ed's ideas are not representative of most who hold pre-trib position. I understand 2Thess 2 to indicate that those who enter the Trib, having heard and rejected the gospel will be judicially blinded by God on the basis of their prior rejection. This is consistent with being abandoned to a reprobate condition as in Rom 1:28.

I see no indication that only Jews will be saved during the trib, nor do I agree that Rev 7 speaks of those raptured before the Trib begins.

Rapture is suggested by the "come up hither" of Rev 4:1. The ones in Rev 7 are Tribulation saints who are saved as a result of the preaching of the 144,000 Jewish evangelists. The Greek is clear on two points:

The "after this" (meta tauta) of v. 9 places these after the sealing of the 144,000.

and, the "out of the great tribulation” (ek ths thlipsews ths megalhs) places them beyond the beginning of the Trib.

No way that fits rapture or resurrection before the Trib. Not only that, there are no women present at that time to count them as Ed suggests. Note 8:1 - there was silence in heaven for about half an hour – no way any women could have been present at the moment! HAH! HAH! Just joking about that part.

All the refs to Matt 24 and Luke 21 equate the Church and Israel. As I said earlier, this is a fundamental interpretive error and results in throwing off all that follows. “Worthy to escape” - no way that is rapture in that context – similarity is not equivalency.

 

Um, I have a question...."If the rapture theory is correct and we all get transported to heaven in the twinkling of an eye" why is so much time spent on debating what is going to happen 10 minutes after we're off planet earth? We're going to be up there !

Is Christ going to need our help with the rapture? I don't think so!

Wasn't our sole job on earth to proclaim the gospel and lead others to Christ? Isn't our "job" going to be over with in a split second? If so, why do we spend so much time, energy and wasted money on books trying to figure out something that He won't even be needing us for?

Do you think it is possible that God purposely did not reveal the exact how, when and where of that great last event because He was able to look down the road and see us all debating away on our computers with what little bit of information He did choose to reveal to us? What if doesn't follow our plan?

Just a thought!

 

It only really matters if 10 minutes after the rapture you are looking up going 'why am I still here?'

 

Remember, if you're up there...then -

Why do you need to TRY and figure out the details of an event that God appears to keep veiled for the most part and won't need your help with anyway?