The Rapture Question

The Rapture and The End of the Age.

The exact chronology of the end of the age is one of the hottest topics in eschatology. Is the rapture of the church before, during or after the Tribulation? Or after the Millennium? Is the Millennium literal or symbolic? Is the Tribulation the church age, or is it a short period of time just prior to the Second Coming? And if so how long is it?

In this paper I propose to put forward at this point a defense of a Post-tribulation rapture. Obviously it is easier to do this in debate with other viewpoints. The popular viewpoint is the Pre-tribulation Rapture viewpoint so I will dialogue with that. However the same argument could be used with mid-tribulation or partial rapture theories.

One’s interpretation of Revelation will be determined by one’s approach on the Rapture, however that is understood. This is true of Historicist, Amillennial or Futurist schools. Thus a discussion of the question is important.

There are necessarily some background assumptions needed.

In the Old Testament we have pictured a coming “Day of the Lord” when the Lord would come and deliver his people. This is the background to the New Testament “day of the Lord”. On this “day”, and it was often referred to simply as “that day”, or “the day” God and his Messiah would come visibly and defeat his enemies and deliver his people. It was thus a day of Judgment, a day of Wrath.

Leon Morris in his little book, “A Biblical Doctrine of Judgment” makes it clear that Biblical judgment involved two aspects:

(i) The punishment of the guilty.

(ii) The reward of the righteous.

In the Jewish idea of judgment these two had to go together for justice to be “seen to be done”. At the same time as punishing the guilty the judge also had to recompense the innocent. Thus one could not happen without the other.

The Day of the Lord was understood to be a “day of Judgment”, and hence a day of God’s wrath on his enemies, but a day of release and reward for his servants. It was thus “a day of Wrath” and a “day of rewards”. Both had to happen together, and this is the clear picture we see in the OT – both events happen on the “day of the Lord”.

Zephaniah clearly depicts the “day of the Lord” to be a “day of Wrath”. The latter part of Isaiah portrays both rewards and punishment on the “day of the Lord”.

So the “day of the Lord” was when God and his Christ would come visibly in power and glory to destroy his enemies and reward his saints. This idea came straight through into the NT teaching, the only change being that this was now understood to be the Second Coming of the Christ.

This is one of the few things all interpreters agree on – the Coming of Christ at the end of the Age is on the day of the Lord. Something we can all agree on.

But does he come before that event for his church, i.e. in a secret “rapture”? That is the crucial question.

Several years ago a man by the name of Stanton wrote a book called, “Kept From the Hour.” Stanton was of Dispensational (pre-tribulation rapture) persuasion. This book was hailed as the greatest defense of the Pre-tribulation rapture position to that point in time. I will borrow some points from him. (I no longer have the book, only some notes from it.)

Stanton argued that there are three words used in the NT to describe the Second Coming:

(i) Revelation. (Greek- apokalupsis)

(ii) Appearing. (Greek - epipheneia)

(iii) Coming. (Greek - Parousia)

Stanton went on to argue that all interpreters agreed that “revelation” and “appearing” referred to Christ’s coming on “the Day of the Lord” when he would visibly appear. With this Stanton had no argument. Both words imply an open, public display, an unveiling of that which was hidden so it could now be publicly seen.

However he then argued that the third word, “Coming” was used differently. It was used to describe Christ’s coming for his church seven years previous to the Day of the Lord.

The literal meaning of Parousia is “coming, presence”, i.e. a coming that results in an (abiding) presence of the "comer”. Stanton argued that this meant that Christ comes and takes his church in the rapture and we are thereafter present with him. (This seems to be reversing the idea of who is “coming” and being “present” but we shall ignore that for now).

I propose to examine the New Testament texts concerning the Second Coming of Jesus to determine WHEN in future time each text refers to. As we go I shall look at Stanton’s theory to see if it holds up – does “coming” refer to something different in the NT to “revelation” and “appearing”.

I grew up in a Dispensational church and for many years held to that point of view, so I understand their way of thinking. So along the way I propose to assume their way of thinking to see if it actually holds up and is consistent in this question of the rapture. So here is a summary of their way of thinking (you will find this in many of their standard works on the subject).

A Dispensational approach to Bible Interpretation.

(I am not suggesting this is all that Dispensationals believe about Bible Interpretation, but this is at least a minimum that they teach on the subject and this minimum is directly applicable to this subject.)

The Bible is written for the average man to understand so therefore we should assume it means exactly what it says. This means there are a few Principles of Bible Interpretation:

(1) The Bible text should be interpreted LITERALLY except where it is clearly a figure of speech or clearly intended to be symbolic. (The Law of Literalism)

(2) Each verse should be interpreted in its context to find its meaning IN CONTEXT. (The Law of context)

(3) No doctrine should be arrived at until one has COMPARED every scripture on the subject. (The Law of Comparison)

(4) Of course, historical, cultural, geographic, etc., information should be used where possible to interpret the Scriptures. (Law of Cultural Context)

(5) We should start from the clear, plain statements of scripture when building a doctrine. More obscure verses should be looked at after the main threads of the doctrine have been established from the clear passages. (Law of Priority)

Actually I still agree with these five guidelines in general, and I am sure most of us do. Another point we may agree on. But we may disagree on what exactly was intended to be symbolic - but let’s leave that for now.

So to work on the New Testament and the Second Coming.

THE END OF THE AGE IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

Actually there is not much in the teaching of Jesus when you look at it.

(1) Matthew 24 &25 and parallels. To the parables here can be added Luke 17:28-29, 32-34, they illustrate the same point.

(2) Matthew 13, the seven parables of the Kingdom - two of which mention the end of the age.

(3) Matthew 20:1 ff , The parable of the vineyard - Indirectly touches on the Second Coming.

(4) Matthew 22:1 ff – the parable of the Wedding Guests - again indirectly.

(5) A handful of isolated references to his return: Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 26:64, Mark 8:38, John14:3, John 14:18, 19(?),

(6) A few references to judgment/reward at the end of the age: Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Matthew 12:41f, Luke 11:32, Luke 19:11-28 (parable of the pounds), John 6:40, 41, 54.

In looking at this list we would have to conclude there is not much really and when we ask the question, “What does Jesus teach about the timing of the Second Coming?” the list is reduced even further.

(1) Four plain statements that he is coming on the Day of the Lord as envisaged in the Old Testament: Matthew 24:29-31, Matthew 25:31, 26:64, Mark 8:38.

(2) Two statements that put his coming at the time of the judgment of BOTH the righteous and the unrighteous: Matthew 13:30, 39-43, Matthew 13:49-50.

Note: In these two parables the righteous and the unrighteous are harvested TOGETHER - this would contradict the Dispensational position of there being a seven year time gap between the two. Jesus clearly says, “The Harvest is the end of the age (13:39, 40)” – he says it twice, in case we miss it.

(3) Three references to the resurrection/judgement of the righteous being “on the last day”: John 6:40, 41, 54. The "last day" is a technical OT phrase for "the Day of the Lord".

The other words of Jesus about the end of the age have no value in helping us answer the question, “When?”. We have to answer that question before we can apply those scriptures to a time.

So in summary we can say that, in Jesus' teaching, the expectation is that he would return on the "last day", the Day of the Lord, and at that time there would be a “harvest” or a “judgment” in which both the righteous and unrighteous would participate in some way. “Harvest (or fishing by net)” and “judgment” are clearly to be seen as metaphors for the same event, one drawn from agriculture, the other from the law court.

And that is about it.

There is no statement of Jesus that would suggest any other coming prior to this for his church.

Dispensational interpreters argue otherwise, and their argument is based on the parables of Jesus and certain assumptions they have made about the conditions of life on earth at the end of the age.

The clearest teaching of Jesus is found in Matthew 24,25 and so it is to there we should turn first.

Note: The major teaching of Jesus on the Second Coming is found in Matthew 24 & 25. This has parallel records in Mark 13 and Luke 17 & 21. We need to remember the different writing styles of Luke and Matthew. Luke seems to record events in chronological order; Matthew tends to groups events and teaching in collections of similar things. Matthew has gathered into one “teaching” what was in actual fact two or more teachings of Jesus. Luke shows us that Jesus taught on this subject on several occasions. Matthew presumably heard many of these teachings and has joined them together. However because Matthew had heard this material come from Jesus several times we can be sure he is giving us an accurate remembrance of Jesus’ teaching in terms of its overall meaning.

Matthew 24,25 is the key passage. This can be subdivided into three subsections for convenience of discussion:

(i) 24:1-35 Program of events leading up to the end.

(ii) 24:36-25:13 A group of related parables illustrating one point.

(iii) 25:14-46 Two other parables.

Dispensationals argue as follows:

(i) 24:1-35 are a literal description of events leading up to and including the Second Coming on the Day of the Lord.

(ii) However 24:36-25:13 are a series of parables that talk of the rapture, which occurs seven years prior to the day of the Lord.

(iii) 25:14-46 are two parables that teach us about events on or after the Day of the Lord.

We need to look at Matthew 24,25 in a bit more depth.

Matthew puts the occasion of this teaching as one arising out of a question the disciples asked Jesus. Jesus had just prophesied the destruction of the temple of Herod.

Matthew 24:1-3.

MATT 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
MATT 24:2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
MATT 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

So the words of Jesus fall into three main sections:

1. General Signs that these are the Last Days
Matthew 24:5-13.

MATT 24:5 For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. MATT 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
MATT 24:7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
MATT 24:8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
MATT 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
MATT 24:10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
MATT 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
MATT 24:12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

MATT 24:13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Jesus lists a series of things that are general signs that these are the last days:
* Wars.
* Famines and earthquakes.
* Persecution of believers in Christ.
* A great falling away from the faith.
* Because of the increase in wickedness in the world LOVE will grow cold - suggesting a breakdown of family, society, church, etc. The primary expression of this will be in LOVE FOR GOD.
* Many false prophets will arise – cults, false religions.
* The gospel will be preached to all nations.
* Then the end will come.

In one sense these have been true from the Fall. But the implication of the words of Jesus here is that these things will become more prevalent – in other words the number of these sorts of things happening will increase the closer to the end we get. Not only that but the intensity of the events will increase.

2. Specific Events just prior to the Second Coming.

Matthew 24:15-20.

MATT 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel- let the reader understand-MATT 24:16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.MATT 24:17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.MATT 24:18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.MATT 24:19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!MATT 24:20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the
Sabbath.MATT 24:21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the
beginning of the world until now- and never to be equaled again.MATT 24:22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.MATT 24:23 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or, `There he is!' do not believe it.MATT 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect- if that were possible.MATT 24:25 See, I have told you ahead of time.MATT 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.MATT 24:27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Jesus lists again several things that will happen just prior to his return:

(1) The Desolating Sacrilege in the Temple in Jerusalem. In Matthew this is clearly an event localised in Israel and there is a warning to flee. When the early church in Jerusalem saw the advancing armies of the Romans in 70AD they fled to Pella in the light of this prophecy. A clear warning from Jesus.

Clearly Jesus didn’t come again immediately after the destruction of the temple in AD70. There are some teachers who say he did in a “spiritual” sense – but Jesus is clearly talking about an event that the whole world can see in vs31.

So the “days of distress” including the destruction of the temple he is talking about refers to something just prior to his return in power and glory. The fact that there were also “days of distress" in 70 AD and that this nicely prophecies those days is a happy coincidence and serves to illustrate the point that many prophecies of scripture have multiple fulfillments in the history of man – but this simply verifies that they are divinely inspired.

Jesus refers to the `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel”.

This is a reference to the end time ruler of the world (Antichrist) who lives and rules just prior to the coming of the Messiah to set up his kingdom (1 Thessalonians 2). He is destroyed by the Coming Messiah. This was not true, historically, of Titus who led the Roman armies into Jerusalem in AD 70. Titus was not killed by Christ returning no matter how hard some interpreters try to imply this passage was fulfilled then. Thus it still needs to be fulfilled.

The Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, refers back to this teaching of Jesus in Revelation 11-14 – but he wrote Revelation after Titus had destroyed the temple. John still saw the events to be future.

So it is clear that the words of Jesus here have a double fulfillment:
* Once in history when Titus and the Romans destroyed the temple.
* Again in the future when the Antichrist sacrifices in the temple.

In giving this prophecy Jesus was acting as an Old Testament type prophet. They were expected to give a prophecy of an event that would happen in the not too distant future. The fulfillment of this event was the proof that their longer term prophecies would also come true. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD proves the rest of the prophecy will also happen.

The fact that this destruction of the temple already has happened does not preclude it happening again at the end of the age in some form. There are examples in the OT of a prophecy having a double fulfillment, one in the near future and one in the distant future, e.g. Isaiah 7:14 “A virgin shall conceive and bear a Son”.

This clearly has a fulfillment in the days it was given – possibly a reference to one of Isaiah’s children, but it also had a longer term fulfillment with the birth of Christ.

So this is a key event in the future: The Antichrist will commit some act of sacrilege in the temple of God.

But what does this mean? There are two possible interpretations:
1. Literal.
There will be a literal temple rebuilt in Jerusalem with a Jewish cult operating before the Second Coming. The Antichrist will either sacrifice an unclean animal in the temple, or (more likely) he will be hailed as deity in the temple (i.e. recognised as being the Messiah, the Son of God).

2. Symbolic.
The temple of God here means the visible world Church (one world religion) and the Antichrist becomes the object of the worship of the visible Church.

Both meanings are possible and both are likely – again there could be a double-barrelled fulfillment.

(2) "Great Distress".

This act - the abomination of desolation - whatever it is, is the trigger for a period of unparalleled suffering.

Matthew 24:21-26.
There will be “great distress”, or “great tribulation”.

This is where the title, “the Tribulation”, or “the Great Tribulation” comes from. This is a time period immediately before the Second Coming of Christ of great trouble in which millions will die, both by natural disasters and by the hand of man. The persecutions of the Nazis or Communists will seem like nothing compared with the murders of the Antichrist.

This time period:
* Is generally held to be of either 3½ or 7 years in length. This depends on one’s interpretation of a passage in Daniel which we won’t go into now.
* Begins with the Antichrist taking his seat in the temple. The Antichrist will rise, proclaiming himself to be God (v15). Ruling over Israel.
* Ends with the Second Coming of Christ.
* There will be much suffering in Israel (v16-20).
* This period has a definite limit to it - a predetermined length (v22).

3. The Second Coming.

Matthew 24:27-30.
* These will be signs in the heavens.
* There will be a specific sign “of the Son of Man”, but what this is, is unspecified. Presumably we will know it when we see it.
* Christ will be seen "coming on the clouds".
* His angels will go out and gather his elect from all the earth.
* The trumpet of God will sound.

So far we have seen that Jesus predicted a series of events leading up to the Second Coming. The programme of events looked like this:

1. Wars, natural disasters, a falling away from the faith.
2. Antichrist takes his seat in the temple.
3. There is "great Tribulation".
4. Christ comes in power and glory at the end of the Tribulation and gathers “his elect” from the four corners of the earth.

On the face of it, it looks pretty simple to me. The problem with understanding it at face value is that the Dispensational school have claimed that “his elect” do not refer to the Church but to the “elect of Israel”, i.e. a Jewish remnant. This then leaves them room to say that this is not the rapture, the rapture occurred seven years earlier and Jesus just didn’t mention it.

In answer to this we can say the following:

1. It is surprising that Jesus would not mention to his disciples such a key event as the rapture – especially as it would affect them personally, being members of his Church.

2. It seems incredible that “his elect” refers here to a “Jewish elect” and not to the disciples of Jesus, the Church. Elsewhere in the gospels, where Jesus uses it, the idea of being “elect” or “chosen” refers exclusively to the disciples of Jesus and, at times, specifically excludes Israelites by birth. To use the idea in such a way here would be novel, and to do so without qualifying explanation would be unlikely. The disciples he was speaking to knew they were “chosen”, “Elect” specifically by Christ.

3. Nowhere else does Jesus, nor do the Apostles, teach of the existence of such a “Jewish elect”. By this I mean it is not clearly taught in scripture. Those who teach it, teach it by inference – but the scriptures used to teach it could be interpreted other ways.

4. The phrase “his elect” in the context means “the Messiah’s elect” and this can only refer to the disciples of Christ, i.e. the Church.

So here we see a clear statement by Jesus:
1. He is returning in power and glory at the end of the Tribulation and,
2. He will gather “his elect” then.

PARABLES OF THE COMING OF CHRIST.

Jesus then goes on to give a string of parables and the main point of these parables is to talk about the timing of the event of the Second Coming. He stresses this in two ways:
1. The Context.
2. Repetition of an idea.

1. The Context.

It is a standard point of exegetical methodology that parables do not actually teach in themselves, rather they are illustrations of a point. The point of the teaching is found IN THE CONTEXT, the parable illustrates the point. Thus parables are “sermon illustrations” and not “sermons in themselves”.

This is simply a straight application of the Law of Context I mentioned earlier.

The context of these parables is these two verses:

Matthew 24:30,31 and Matthew 25:31. Both of these are clearly talking about Christ’s coming on power and glory on the day of the Lord. We would thus naturally expect these parables to be illustrating this coming on THE DAY, and not some other coming.

This is further confirmed by a Jewish writing technique which we may call “bracketing” because it is just like our bracketing. Several years ago I did a course in Hebrew literature at university and the lecturer introduced the class to this idea.

When a Hebrew writer wants to isolate something out of the main body of the text he does so, not by using curvey lines like we would, but by repeating an idea or thought. The result is that a piece of writing will be bracketed by the repetition of an idea, which is the main idea. The bit in the middle is an explanation of the main idea. It looks like this:

Main Idea / Explanation of idea / Main Idea.

Matthew (and presumably Jesus) does this in Matthew 24 &25.

Matthew 24:30, 31 AND Matthew 25:31 are the beginning and end of the brackets.
What this tells us straight away is that the bit in the middle (24:32-25:30) are explaining the coming described in verses before and after them. Jesus has not changed subjects and started talking about some other coming (a secret rapture?). He is still on subject. These parables all illustrate his coming in power and glory at the end of the Tribulation on the day of the Lord.

This would not be a difficulty if Dispensational teachers had not claimed that these parable all talked about “the secret rapture of the Church seven years earlier”. In context, both textual context and context of Jewish literary style, this is impossible.

The context demands that they are talking about Christ’s coming on the Day of the Lord.

2. Repetition of an Idea.

With these parables Jesus is trying to get through one single idea: We don’t know when his coming will be.To get this through to us he tells nine parables about timing.


1. Matthew 24:32-35. The Fig Tree.
This first parable refers back to the signs of his coming he mentioned earlier in the chapter. When we see those signs we will know the end, and his coming, are near. We should therefore be ready.

Matthew 24:36. The Point of the parables.

“we do not know the day or the hour”

Jesus makes the point strongly here at the end of the first parable - and in case we miss that this IS the point Jesus then repeats it after each of the parables.

Jesus admits here that he is not omniscient – at least not at this point of his earthly life. There were things about the future he did not know.

2. Matthew 24:37-39. The days of Noah.
This is more about judgment that will come on the unbeliever when the Son of Man comes. The point is that the judgment comes when Christ comes – the judgment here is not the Tribulation, but after the coming of the Son of man – which in context is his coming on the day of the Lord. Hence “the flood of Noah” cannot be used to illustrate the Tribulation – it simply doesn’t do so in the context we find the parable.

3. Matthew 24:40-42. Farming Illustrations.
These are clearly illustrating the phrase “the son of man will send out his angels and gather his elect…”
If they illustrate anything at all they illustrate the rapture. But again, in context, the coming is that on the Day of the Lord.

4. Matthew 24:43,44. The Thief in the Night.
The motif of the thief in the night is one of the most confused in scripture. It is only used five times in scripture.

(i) Once has no direct reference to the Second Coming.

(ii) Once has an indirect reference to the Second Coming, Rev 3:3 – in itself it has no reference to the Second Coming, but it is quoted in Rev 16:15 where it definitely refers to the Second Coming on the Day of the Lord).

(iii) The other three (Rev 16:15, 1 Thess 5:2, Matthew 24:43,44) directly refer to Christ’s coming on the day of the Lord the Day of the Lord.

None of them refer to a secret rapture seven years prior to the day of the Lord.

Thus the motif of “the thief in the night” – as far as scripture is concerned refers to the “day of the Lord” coming of Christ and not to some other event. It is fundamentally a twisting of scripture to apply it to a “coming” seven years previously. Years ago there was a movie called "A Thief in the Night" and it was a presentation of a Pre-tribulation rapture doctrine - but it is a travesty of scripture to apply the motif of "a thief in the night" to anything other than the "Day of the Lord" coming.

5. Matthew 24:45-51. The Faithful Servant.
Luke repeats this in Luke 12:42-46 and 17:26,27.
Again in context it refers to the day of the Lord Coming. Hence the "servant" - a metaphor for "A Christian" is expected to be faithful until the day of the Lord.

6. Matthew 25:1-13. The Ten Virgins.
The idea of the coming kingdom being like a wedding breakfast and the bride having to make herself ready for it is used several times in Scripture. In Revelation 19:1-7, as it is here, the wedding breakfast is after Christ comes on the day of the Lord. Midnight is clearly the “hour” of the day of the Lord in the context we have here.

These six parables all have the point repeated after them – in case we miss it. It is this: We don’t know the day nor the hour of Christ’s coming.
But the thing we need to recognise is that, in context, the coming Jesus is talking about is the coming referred to in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31, his coming in power and glory at the end of the Tribulation, on the day of the Lord. There is no indication Jesus has changed subjects – the Law of Context demands we interpret these parables with respect to the verses immediately preceding and following the parables.

The last two parables also illustrate this coming on the day of the Lord but bring out a different point – there is going to be rewards and punishments when the Lord returns. We don’t need to examine these at this point. Except to note that rewards for the righteous and punishment form the wicked happens in these parables AT THE SAME TIME, as Leon Morris argues. Justice has to be seen to be done both ways at the same time.

7. Matthew 25:14-30. The Parable of the Talents.

8. Matthew 25:32-46. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
Luke’s Gospel adds two more parables but they do not change anything as far as our understanding of the timing of the Lord’s coming and the rapture are concerned.

9. Luke 17:28-32 Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot’s wife.

Again the Destruction of Sodom cannot be used as an illustration of the Tribulation and hence the escape of Lot and his family of a pre-tribulation rapture – because in the context we find this parable it is illustrating Christ’s coming on the day of the Lord. The destruction of Sodom is not a symbol of the Tribulation, but of events after Christ comes in power and glory. It is a symbol of Wrath, not of Tribulation - and these are different.

10. Luke 17:34 Two people in a bed.

Both of these are found in context with parables which are also found in Matthew 24,25 so we must assume Jesus is referring to the same event.

On the specific question of, “when is the Rapture of the church?” there is little in the teaching of Jesus. The following scriptures could be interpreted to be speaking of the rapture:

1. Matthew 13:39-43 - The Harvest.

2. Matthew 13:47-50 - The Net.

3. Matthew 24: 30,31 “gather his elect”

4. Matthew 24:37ff – the Flood and Noah.

5. Matthew 25:1-13 – The Coming of the Bridegroom.

6. Luke 17:28 Lot and Sodom.

7. John 14:3 –“In my father’s house…”

Pretty slim pickings really. The John passage has no timing clue connected to it. Matthew 24:30,31 clearly refers to the day of the Lord. The other references I have demonstrated IN CONTEXT must refer to the day of the Lord coming. To try to make them mean anything else is to either:

(i) Deny the law of context is a valid hermeneutic, or,

(ii) Is to rip the verses out of context completely and give them a meaning they cannot carry in the context they are found.

Neither of these solutions would I find very satisfying.

If these scriptures do not refer to the rapture of the church then we have an amazing thing: An event so important in the future of the church – and Christ said absolutely nothing about it. Again, this is not a solution I would find very satisfying. Thus I assume Jesus is talking about, or hinting at, the rapture in these passages – but the context clearly shows he is expecting this “rapture” to happen on the day of the Lord.

And that is the sum total of Christ’s teaching on his Second Coming. Not much really, and if one lets it speak for itself without trying to impose a pre-held theory on it then we would get the following scenario:

1. There will be increasing wars, violence and natural disasters, false Christs and false religions. These are signs of the end times/last days.
2. At some point (Antichrist) will take his seat in the temple. This seems to be the beginning of the last period of human history as we know it. This is called by Christ (the) “Great Tribulation”.
3. Christ comes in power and glory on the day of the Lord and will gather his people to himself in the clouds. The angels do the gathering. This will finish the reign of (Antichrist). This will be the end of this Age.
4. Following this there will be some form of celebration for the saints (a “Wedding breakfast”) accompanied by an allocation of rewards for service done for the Lord in this life.
5. There will also be some form of judgement for those who have not accepted Christ and they will be sent to the “lake of fire” (Hell).


To complete this overview of the teaching of Christ on his Second Coming I just want to compare what Jesus sys with the theory put forward by Stanton which I referred to earlier.

Stanton argued that there are three words used in the NT to describe the Second Coming:

(iv) Revelation Greek apokalupsis.

(v) Appearing Greek epiphaneia.

(vi) Coming Greek parousia. Literally “presence”.

Stanton went on to argue that all interpreters agreed that “revelation” and “appearing” referred to Christ’s coming on “the Day of the Lord” when he would visibly appear. With this Stanton had no argument.

However he then argued that the third word, “Coming” was used differently. It was used to describe Christ’s coming for his church seven years previous to the Day of the Lord. This is because the root meaning is “presence” – though I can’t now remember how he argued his way through this. I would have thought “presence” better described Christ’s coming on the day of the Lord when he comes to stay, rather than an event 7 years prior when he supposedly comes and goes.

Does this argument stack up in the teaching of Jesus?

My trusty Young’s concordance tells me that in the teaching of Jesus:

(i) “epiphaneia” – appearing - is not used of the Second Coming.

(ii) Apokalupsis, “revelation” is not used of the Second Coming, but “revealed” is in Luke 17:30 and this is clearly a reference to the Day of the Lord.

(iii) Parousia, “coming” is used in Matthew 24:1, 27 – clearly in context referring to the same event which is the day of the Lord. (Jesus would hardly set out to answer a question about his “coming” and give an answer using that word “coming” yet mean something entirely different by it without explaining what he meant.)

So, in the teaching of Jesus, Stanton’s theory fails immediately. “Parousia” is used only in reference to the day of the Lord.

Another word for “appear” is used in a context that could be applied to the Second Coming in Luke 19:11 (Greek anaphainomai, literally “to shine again”). This verse is particularly interesting as it touches on the Dispensational doctrine of the “immanence of the Lord’s Coming”. The question raised here is, “Is the Kingdom coming soon?” – and by implication, “Is the Christ coming to rule (visibly) soon?”

Jesus replies to his question with the parable we find here in which he teaches that he would be gone for a while – long enough for those servants he leaves behind to enter into trading relationships and prosper.

In what is presumably the Matthew version of the same story (though probably Jesus told the same stories many times to different audiences) it is stressed that the master was gone “for a long time” (Matt 25:19). Jesus presumably is trying to indicate to his disciples that there would be a time gap between his leaving and his return and that this gap would be reasonably significant.

Jesus indicates this time gap also in other parables and teaching:

(i) The Wedding Matt 25:1-17.

It was not uncommon for betrothal to take place many years before marriage – even at infancy often betrothal was arranged by parents. The actual wedding followed when the children (or at least the groom) became adults. In that time period it was common practice for the groom and his family to add rooms to the family house so that when he did get married there would be living quarters for the new couple (John 14:2,3). This parable indicates a significant time period between his “going” and his “coming again”.

Not only that Jesus tells us that the groom was delayed in coming “a long time coming” (Matt 25:4) and so the bridesmaids went to sleep and some had long enough to become totally unprepared for the real event.

(ii) The parables of Harvest, Matthew 13. There are two parables here both deal with aspects of sowing and reaping. But the point is there is a significant time period between sowing and reaping.

(iii) The parable of faithful stewards, Matt 24:45-51. Again this gives the implication that the master was away for long enough for the unfaithful, abusive servant to think he could get away with his bad behaviour.

Nowhere does Jesus teach his second coming would be “immanent” particularly in the sense of “possibly right away”.

What Jesus teaches is, rather, that his return will be unexpected when it happens, whenever that is. We are not given a firm date or hour so it is unknown when it will happen. Always he indicates an undefined time period between his leaving and his return - and that this time period would be “long”.

Because we "do not know" we should always be on the alert – but the parables that teach this need to be “on the alert” are all parables which, in context, are teaching about Christ’s coming on the day of the Lord. They do not apply to some secret, silent rapture seven years previously.

THE SECOND COMING IN THE LETTERS OF PETER:

1 Peter 1:7,13.

"Revealed" implies “the Day of Lord”. Peter’s expectation is that our salvation will be complete when Christ is “revealed” and on this we should set “our hope”. This complete “salvation” is thus to come on the “day of the Lord” – and not seven years previously.

1 Peter 4:7

“The end of all things is near”

1 Peter reads like Peter expected Christ very soon. The whole letter has this feel. But his actual statement about the Coming of the Lord puts that event on the Day of the Lord.

2 Peter shows Peter had received a revelation about his own personal future – he was to soon die (1:14,15). He was clearly not expecting the Lord to come “at any moment” because he was expecting to die first.

Peter also had an understanding that things were going to go wrong in the church (2 Peter 2) – false teachers, heresies, many will follow these false teachers. These are all events Peter expected to happen IN THE CHURCH – and they indicate that he was not expecting the church to be disappearing soon.

2 Peter 2:9

Peter here reflects the Hebrew idea of Justice earlier talked about – the righteous and the unrighteous are together on the day of judgment.

2 Peter 3:4-12.
Clearly about the Day of the Lord (3:10) – the day of judgement (3:7).

The call to holiness Peter then issues (3:11) is then based on the fact of God’s judgement on the Day of the Lord, or “the day of God” (3:12). This “day of God” is the day, Peter says, “we (the church) look forward to…and speed its coming”. Beyond that we look forward to a “new heavens and a new earth” (3:13)

Peter tells us Paul talked about this too. He considered his doctrine on these things to be in line with Paul’s.

So the only “coming of Christ” Peter teaches about is his coming on the day of the Lord and this we “look forward to” – it is our “hope”. Clearly the church will be there for it, in Peter’s mind.

Before that Peter expects certain things to happen:

(i) His own death.

(ii) False teachers and heresies in the church.

(iii) One of the false teachings that will come is to come “in the last days” (3:3), which Peter seems to think is some time after he is writing, and this false teaching will come from “scoffers” who query Christ’s coming based on an “evolutionary” doctrine of the processes of nature.

All of this is to happen before Christ returns.

One of the reasons for the “scoffing” is going to be because Christ’s coming has not happened and it was promised so long ago (3:4 – NIV has an interesting rendering.). This in itself is interesting – it implies that Christ’s coming will be significantly delayed – long enough for the idea of his return to become a matter of laughing and scorn. But Peter is clear – God is putting off Christ’s coming – and will do so for a long time – because he wants as many as possible to be saved (3:9).

To emphasise that (at least in His own eyes) God is not mucking around, Peter quotes the OT “A day is as 1000 years”. A clear hint that, in Peter’s thought, Christ’s coming might be a long way off in our time. But it is not a long time to God’s way of thinking.

So Peter’s idea of the Lord’s coming being “near” (1 Peter 4:7) is not contradictory to it being possibly 1000’s of years off and there being things that are going to happen in the church between Peter writing and Christ coming.

So for Peter, the idea that “there is no known prophetic event before the Lord’s coming for the church (i.e. the rapture)” is not on. He prophecies some prophetic events for the church before the rapture, including the doctrine of “scientific” evolution.

The Second Coming in the rest of the General Epistles:

Hebrews 1:13

This is an important verse in considering the Timing of the Second Coming. Christ is here commanded by the Father to “Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

This clearly indicates that Christ will remain in heaven until his enemies are a footstool for his feet. This is thus a precondition for the Second Coming. Christ must remain in heaven until all his enemies are a footstool for his feet. This must include Satan, the Antichrist and False prophet. Thus he must remain in heaven until the end of the Tribulation.

Hebrews 9:28.

“He will appear a second time…to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”

When this happens is not stated directly but implied in the context – the judgment will follow afterwards.

Hebrews 10:25.

“the Day” – a technical term for “the day of the Lord”. The implication is that we will not only be able to see “the Day” approaching but that “the Day” is what we (Christians) are waiting for.

James 5:7,8.

“Be patient until the Lord’s coming…”

“The Lord’s coming is near…”

But there are no clues as to timing.

1 John 2:28 – when he appears – but no clue to timing.

1 John 3:2,3. At his coming we will be like him – so purify yourself. No timing clues.

Jude 14,15.
Clearly about the Day of the Lord.

Stanton’s theory and the General epistles:

“Appear” Greek erchomai – Hebrews 9:28,

“Appear” Greek phaneroo – 1 Peter 5:4, 1 John 2:28, 3:2

“revelation” – 1 Peter 1:7, 13

“revealed” – 1 Peter 1:5, 5:1.

“Come, Coming” :

Greek: erchomai - Jude 14.

Greek: heko - 2 Peter 3:10 “the day of the Lord shall come…”

Greek: Parousia –

(i) James 5:7, 8 his “coming” is near.

(ii) 2 Peter 1:16 – refers to his first coming.

(iii) 2 Peter 3:4, 12 - the Day of the Lord.

(iv) 1 John 2:28.

It would appear that the writers of the general epistles are quite indifferent as to what they call the Second Coming. All three Greek words are used interchangeably and refer to the Day of the Lord Coming.

Stanton’s theory does not hold up in the General epistles.

Summary:

1. The writers of the General Epistles know nothing of a “coming” other than on the “day of the Lord”.

2. Hebrews and 2 Peter both strongly imply that we (the church) are going to be around until the coming on the day of the Lord.

THE SECOND COMING IN THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.

There is a wealth of material in the writings of Paul on the Second Coming. It is clear that Paul lived with a vibrant hope that this event would be “soon”. But what did he mean by that?

The difficult question is, “Where do we start?” In answer to this question we need to fall back on our principles of Bible interpretation:

1. We must gather all the relevant material on any subject.

2. We must start with the plain, clear statements and interpret the more obscure statements in the light of those.

3. We need to interpret statements in context.

I will cover all of the material as we progress but where to start?

The answer is not as difficult as we might think. There was actually quite a debate about aspects of the Second Coming in the Early Church and Paul addressed this in his letters in some depth. In particular the Church at Thessalonica had several problems and Paul wrote two letters to them to clarify the truth. It is generally agreed by Bible scholars that these two letters were written only a few months apart. The first letter was written to address a specific issue raised by the fact that some people in the Church had died. The question being asked was, “What has happened to them? Have they missed out on salvation?” Paul writes to answer this question in 1 Thessalonians.
As a result of this letter other questions were raised and Paul later wrote 2 Thessalonians to clarify his teaching. This means that, as far as we can tell, the clearest, most detailed teaching on the Second Coming in Paul’s letters is that found in 2 Thessalonians. It is there we should start.

The question being asked in Thessolanica that led to Paul writing this letter (2 Thessalonians) was different to the question that prompted 1 Thessalonians. The question Paul is answering here is this:
"Has the Second Coming of Christ, the Day of the Lord, already come and we have all missed it" (2 Thess 2:1-2). It is a question about timing - has the event happened or is it still to come?

Paul indicates this by the way he introduces the subject: "we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come."
It is this question Paul is answering - we need to keep this in mind. Knowing the question being answered to a large extent determines how we read and interpret the answer Paul gives.

2 Thessalonians. 2:1-12.

As the question we are examining is the timing of the Second Coming we will ignore the details of the career of the “man of lawlessness”. The only things we are interested in are:
* The fact of his existence and
* The timing of his life in relation to the Second Coming of Christ.

2:1 “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him,”

Two things are mentioned here. It is clear that, in Paul’s mind, they are one and the same event:
* "The Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
* "Our gathering together to meet him." This is a clear reference to the resurrection of the saints and the rapture of the Church. The word “our” here means Paul and his readers, the Church. If this does not refer to the rapture/resurrection of the Church it is hard to imagine what it might refer to.

So this is as clear a clear statement about the Second Coming and rapture/first resurrection as we could hope for. This is clearly the subject Paul is intending to address.

The phrase, “The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” in context has to be interpreted in the light of 2:8 “the splendour of his coming” which is clearly a reference to the Day of the Lord – the antichrist is going to be “destroyed” then.

It is significant that Dispensational teachers routinely do one of two things with this verse:

(i) They ignore it completely, or,

(ii) They try to place a division between the two things Paul mentions: “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “Our gathering together to meet him” – as if they were two different events – but this seems unlikely exegesis.

If we were to accept the Dispensational interpretation then we would find that Paul doesn’t answer the question, i.e. “what about our gathering to meet him?” The rest of the chapter talks about the Second Coming on the day of the Lord and events leading up to that (Antichrist and so on) but it does not mention anything that could be interpreted to be a separate event for the rapture. So we would be expected to believe that Paul started out to answer a question about the rapture and ended up not answering the question at all but talked about an event seven years later, i.e. the Second Coming.

It would be ludicrous to suggest Paul is talking about a different “coming” in v1 to that he is talking about in v8. Paul would have just been creating confusion if he meant two different things and didn’t say so. I don’t think Paul’s mind was that unhinged.

Clearly this is a verse which is very difficult for those holding a Dispensational position – or a mid tribulation rapture position.

“…saying that the day of the Lord has already come.”
This is in the same sentence as the reference to the Second Coming and Rapture. This indicates that, in Paul’s mind, the Second Coming and rapture are to be on the “day of the Lord”, i.e. the great last day of this age when the Messiah appears in power and glory and establishes his kingdom.

There is no indication that he has suddenly changed subjects mid sentence, i.e. from the rapture/resurrection to a different event, i.e. the day of the Lord. To suggest he has done so would be ludicrous. To say he is talking about two different things in the same sentence without qualifying what he is saying is unlikely to say the least. Common sense interpretation, interpreting in context, suggests that the "coming of the Lord" and the accompanying rapture of the Church are the same thing as "the day of the Lord".

The Dispensational position can only be maintained by breaking the fundamental rules of Bible interpretation, particularly the rule of interpreting in context.

“…that day will not come until…”
Paul immediately denies that the Day of the Lord has already come and then here tells us that “that day” – an OT phrase for the day of the Lord - “will not come until” and then he goes on to list several events that have to happen first – before Christ comes again and before the rapture. Included in this list is the life and career of the “man of lawlessness”, i.e. the Antichrist.

The Dispensational interpretation at this point has real problems because it is fundamental to that school of thought that "there are no known prophetic events to happen before the Rapture/Resurrection of the Church." Paul's words here plainly contradict that assertion. The way Dispensational teachers overcome this problem is to say Paul has "changed subjects" in mid sentence. Where he started talking about the rapture he is now talking about the coming of Christ on the day of the Lord. To me this interpretation makes Paul's words a seedbed of confusion and makes Paul into some sort of idiot who couldn't keep his train of thought. Clearly I am not impressed with this line of argument. The problem seems to be in the interpreters not in Paul.

“…the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.”(2:8)
* The reference to Christ’s “coming” here with no qualifying explanation means that we have to understand this as referring back to the Second Coming and Rapture at the beginning of the passage 2:1).
* The Jewish literary feature of bracketing, that I have talked about before, also demands that we see the references to the Coming of Christ in verse 1 and verse 8 as referring to the same thing. The description of the Antichrist’s career in between the two verses is thus an explanation, a filling out of detail, of that Coming of the Lord for his church on the day of the Lord.

So the “programme” of the end of the age, as envisaged by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 is as follows:
(a) First there will be great rebellion, or apostasy (v3). A falling away from religion, or at least the worship of the true God.
(b) The Antichrist, the man of Lawlessness, will appear, proclaiming himself to be God (v4). His appearance will come with all sorts of wonders and sign and deception (v9).
(c) Antichrist sets himself up to be worshiped in the temple (v4). Whether this means a Jewish temple in Jerusalem or the spiritual temple of the Church, in the form of a "One World Religion", is not specified. It could be both.
(d) Antichrist will be destroyed by the coming of Christ (v8).
(e) At this time the Church will be “gathered to meet” Christ, i.e. raptured.

This passage, then, presents us with the same sequence of events as does Matthew 24:1-31. Paul is in complete agreement with Jesus.
The Coming of the Lord and the Gathering of the Saints is on the day of the Lord at the end of the age.

This is confirmed by the other reference to the Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10.
“He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well.”

This is steeped in the language of Jewish jurisprudence as I have discussed from Leon Morris’ book “The Biblical Concept of Justice”. Two things happen, the guilty are punished and the righteous/innocent are rewarded – but these have to happen together (in time). The punishment of the wicked at the end of the age must therefore coincide in time with the reward of the righteous. Justice will be seen to be done all round.

This indicates, however, that the righteous cannot be rewarded (i.e. raptured/resurrected, as that is part of our reward) until the time for the wicked to be punished. We cannot “jump the gun”. Thus Paul goes on to say:
“This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God… on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.”

* The Reward of the saints does not happen until the day of the Lord - Paul says so! He uses the phrase "the day" which is OT shorthand for "the Day of the Lord".
* It is when he is revealed "with blazing fire." This is not some silent, unobservable coming but a coming with "fire" presumably for judging the enemies of Christ.
* That this is the “day of the Lord” is confirmed by Paul by his use of the phrase ”revealed from heaven.” This is not some hidden event.
* The word “revealed” means ‘A public disclosure, revelation, unveiling”. The “revelation of Christ” at the end of the age is when “all men shall see him”. Scholars of all schools of thought are agreed that the “revelation of Christ” or “the day he is revealed” refers to the day of the Lord at the end of the age. It is the appearance of Jesus in power and glory as recorded in the book of Revelation.

Clearly Paul’s expectation of the Lord coming “soon” was not contradictory in his mind of the idea that there were known prophetic events which had to happen before Christ returned. On the basis of this passage we would have to say Paul did not believe in “imminence” in the sense of, “Jesus could come right now”.

1 Thessalonians.

As 2 Thessalonians was written to fill in and explain details left out in 1 Thessalonians it is to there we should turn next to see what Paul says. But we should be aware: Paul is hardly likely to say something in 1 Thessalonians that contradicts the explanation/elaboration he gives in 2 Thessalonians.

We need to get the teaching in context with the whole epistle. Paul mentions the Second Coming/End of the age several times in the epistle.

We need to remember that the chapter and verse divisions are a convenience put in by man and not part of Paul’s original writing. So we should not let them throw us off the context of the whole letter.

The other references are:

1 Thess 1:10 “who rescues us from the coming wrath”.

But there is no timing clue as to when this “coming wrath” is.

1 Thess 2:19. We will be in Christ’s presence when he comes (parousia) and will be rewarded.

1 Thess 3:13 Christ is coming (parousia) with all his holy angels.

Then Paul gives his major teaching: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:5.

We need to remember the context of the question Paul is trying to answer: 1 Thess 4:13. “What about those who have already died in the Lord – are they saved?”

Paul’s answer is that when Christ comes the “dead in Christ will be raised first, then we who are alive will be caught up to be with him in the air.”

1 Thess 4:15: This will happen at “the coming (parousia) of the Lord”

When will this happen? It will be when Christ comes:
* “with a loud command,”
* “with the voice of the archangel and”
* “with the trumpet call of God,”
In all it doesn't sound very quiet!

Notice in all of the references we have looked at the clear mention of the trumpet, and the archangel's call. Clearly all of these passages are talking about the same event.
C/f Matthew 24:30,31, 25:31 (above). The Day of the Lord when Christ comes on power and glory. In fact Paul confirms this is so as he continues:

“Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night…”

* Having talked of Christ’s coming and the resurrection/rapture Paul immediately talks of “the day of the Lord”. There is no indication that he has changed subjects so we must assume he is still talking about the same thing. Context demands it. For Paul Christ’s coming for the Church, the rapture, is on the day of the Lord.
* Paul uses the metaphor of a “thief in the night”. But it is not a “secret rapture” that will come “as a thief”, rather it is the “day of the Lord” the day when Christ is publicly displayed in power and glory. So for Paul the “thief in the night” metaphor did not mean “secret, silent, unnoticed”

By this metaphor he clearly means that Christ’s coming will be “unexpected” as he goes on to elaborate the thought. The idea is not that “the thief comes and goes and no one notices”, rather the idea is that “the coming of the thief is unexpected.” But the question is: “Unexpected by who?” Paul clearly does not think Christ’s coming will be unexpected for everyone alive at the time of his coming. It is only those who don’t believe in Christ who will find it to be unexpected. Christians are not caught out by surprise.

“But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.”

Paul never suggests that the timing of the Second Coming of Jesus is so surrounded in mystery that Christians will be taken by surprise. Rather he expects that we should be aware of the times and seasons, the events leading up to it, and so be prepared for Christ’s coming. This, then, is in complete accord with 2 Thessalonians 2 where he gives detailed events leading up to Christ’s coming. We need to take note and be on the alert.

We will not be caught out unawares because there are events prophesied in scripture that immediately precede the Second Coming and these will warn us that Christ's coming is almost on us.

So for Paul, in I Thessalonians, the timing of the Lord’s coming is “the Day of the Lord”.

Paul’s other major teaching on the Second Coming and Rapture is found in: 1 Corinthians 15:51-57.

This is probably the classic reference to the rapture in which the details of what happens then are revealed.
* Those of us who are alive will have our bodies transformed (v51, 52).
* Those who have already died in Christ will be raised to life again (v52).

But what clues are there as to when this event happens - the timing? The answer is in the chapter.

(a) "Death is swallowed up in victory".
When we receive our resurrection bodies Paul tells us that "Death is swallowed up in victory". However, earlier in the chapter we are told that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death" (v24-26). Here is a clear revelation. All of Christ's enemies will be destroyed before DEATH - including the Antichrist and False Prophet. Death is the “last” enemy. Thus “Death” is not destroyed until the End, after Antichrist. Thus our “mortality” will not be “swallowed up by immortality” until after Antichrist is destroyed.


(b) "AT THE LAST TRUMPET".
Logic drives us to understand that this must be the seventh trumpet of REVELATION.
* It could not come before the seven trumpets of Revelation or it would not be the “last”.
* If it is the “last” it implies that there must be some before it, it is the last, i.e. in a series. If it is not one of the Seven Trumpets then we know nothing about the rest of the series.
* If it is not the seventh trumpet then it must come after the seventh trumpet, otherwise it could not be the "last". If this is so then:
(i) We do not know anything else about it.
(ii) It would happen after the Millennium, as we are told that the seventh trumpet blows until all prophecy is fulfilled (Revelation 10:7), which is after the Millennium, in the eternal state. This is impossible and doesn’t make sense. Thus the “last trumpet” cannot come after the “seventh trumpet”, the “last” must be the “seventh”.
* We are told that the seventh trumpet ushers in the day of the Lord and the coming of the Lord on that day (Revelation 11:15ff). It seems logical to identify it with other trumpets referred to at Christ's coming.

So the three passages in Paul’s letters that specifically mention the rapture all place it on the day of the Lord, at the end of the Tribulation. In this Paul agrees with the teaching of Jesus.

Other References in Paul’s Epistles that teach we are waiting for the Day of the Lord:

Romans 8:18,19.
Though this does not directly refer to the Second Coming it does refer to events that are the consequence of the Second Coming:
* The “revelation of the sons of God”. This is clearly the same thing as “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” – this is the rapture/resurrection. This is said here to be our “hope”.
* The Creation will be released from its “bondage to decay”. The timing of this is clearly meant to be the same as when we receive our resurrection bodies. Again this is tied in with the Hebrew idea of justice. The Earth was subjected to futility by the sin of man. When the final consequences of man’s sin are dealt with, and we are released from sinful bodies, justice will be done to the earth also. So the earth “waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God” knowing that when we are set free so too will the earth. Just as the earth will not be set free until the day of the Lord, so too we will not be set free until the day of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:7.
Paul is writing here to the Corinthian Church, but also “to all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 2), that includes us.
Paul says we are “waiting for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.” The use of the word “revealed” here refers us to the events of the day of the Lord. We are awaiting the coming of the Lord on the day of the Lord, not some other event. This is as plain a statement as we could hope for. We, the Christian church, are waiting for the Day of the Lord. Normal rules of interpretation say we should explain the phrase by comparing it to other places where it is used and we should take the clearest of these as the guideline for interpreting the phrase here. The clearest usage is in 2 Thess 1:7 which I have already discussed. There are several reasons why the phrase there means the day of the Lord". We have to let it mean that here too. THERE IS NO USAGE IN SCRIPTURE OF THE PHRASE "THE REVELATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST" WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN TO MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE DAY OF THE LORD. Because of this it is illegitimate to give it any other meaning.

That this is the correct meaning is confirmed by the next verse (interpreting according to the context): "He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paul says two things here that tie the timing to the day of the Lord.

(i) He actually says it is the day of the Lord - but he adds "Jesus Christ" to it, an understandable addition in the light of the NT revelation of who Christ is.

(ii) He says God will "keep us strong to the end". "The  end" is OT shorthand for the phrase "the end of the age" and it always retains this meaning in the NT. The "end" is the "day of the Lord." We have to wonder, if we are raptured 7 years prior to the end, why God would have to "keep us strong to the end." That would seem to be unnecessary as we would be in heaven and thus have no need to be kept. Paul seemed to think we had a need to be "kept until the end" thus implying he thought we would be here "until the end."

1 Corinthians 5:1-5.
Paul here is talking about a situation needing Church discipline. The details of this are not important for our discussion here but he concludes in verse 5 with a reference to our theme:
“hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.”
* The person concerned is clearly a Christian – after all it is only Christians that the Church has the right of discipline over - and Paul affirms the person’s eventual eternal salvation, “his spirit saved”.
* But alongside eternal salvation there are other consequences of his sin “that the sinful nature may be destroyed”. The coupling of this with ”his spirit saved” shows that Paul envisages both events happening at the same time.
* This will happen “on the day of the Lord”.
* Thus this verse indicates that Paul expected the resurrection/rapture to be on the day of the Lord.

1 Timothy 6:14.
“...to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,”

* The phrase “the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” is an equivalent of “the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” and refers to Christ’s coming in power and glory on the day of the Lord.
* Paul thus expected that Christians should continue to be obedient until then – indicating he expected us to be around until then. “Until” is a time determining word.

2 Timothy 4:8. “Who have longed for his appearing”
* It is on "that day", this is an OT phrase meaning “the day of the Lord.”
* It is when he “appears”. Stanton agrees this means the day of the Lord.
* That’s when Christ will reward his saints.

Titus 2:13.
“while we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,“

* This is “our blessed hope”. The “our” means all Christians.
* The hope is “the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” – not some secret hidden event. It is the day of the Lord.
* This is what we are waiting for.

Significantly Dispensationalists often talk about “our blessed hope” and apply that phrase to a secret rapture seven years previous to the Day of the Lord. But in the context from which it comes, Titus 2;13, the blessed hope is the coming of the Lord on the Day of the Lord. The repeated usage of Titus 2:13 by Dispensationalists to refer to a prior rapture makes me wonder if they actually read the Bible.

The punctuation of this verse is debatable. It could be read either as:

(i) "...our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ." Or it could read:

(ii) "our great God,  and saviour Jesus Christ."

(i) means there is only one person coming - Jesus who is both our God and our saviour. 

(ii) means there are two people coming, God and his Christ, Jesus.

If we accept (ii) as being correct then this is in line with the OT expectation that, on the day of the Lord, God and his Christ would come together.

Philippians 1:6,10.
"The Day of Our Lord Jesus Christ". Gods' work will continue in us until then.

Philippians 3:14,20,21.
The Changing of our bodies. But there is no direct time clue in this passage as to when it occurs. Therefore we must interpret it according to passages which are plain.

Note: In arriving at a doctrine the rule is ALWAYS as follows: Start with the clear statements of scripture and build up the general picture. Only then should the more obscure verses be reconciled with the clear.
Most of the theories on the Second Coming are a result of building a theory out of an obscure passage, and then trying to fit everything else into it. You can see here that we have started with the clear passages that give the order of events and timing and have arrived at a consistent picture in them. You will find that every other passage referring to the Second Coming fits into this general picture we have drawn.

The Dispensational interpretation argues that while "revelation" and "appearing' refer to the day of the Lord, "coming" refers to the secret rapture which happens prior to then.
We have already mentioned several passages where this does not hold true.
In fact “coming” is regularly identified with the day of the Lord and with other words such as “revelation” and “appearing”.

I have not looked at the evidence of REVELATION in the paper. This is not because I would undermine my position - it odes not it strengthens it in every way. I have ignored it for two reasons:

(i) One really has to have the doctrine of the second coming and rapture sorted out in one's head before one undertakes REVELATION.

(ii) I have put up on this blog a separate study on the Coming of the Lord in REVELATION.

SUMMARY:

(1) Many times we are told we (the church) are waiting for the glorious appearing of Christ on the day of the Lord.

(2) Every NT reference we have looked at, if they have a time clue at all, refers to the day of the Lord, the end of the age. The Second Coming and the Rapture are placed there several times.

(3) Nowhere is it even hinted that there is an earlier coming and rapture for the Church, or for part of the Church.
This would rule out any theories such as a Pre tribulation rapture, Mid tribulation rapture or any partial rapture theories.

In this paper what I have tried to do is just say what the scriptures say. It seems to me that the issue is not really controversial at all – if one lets the scripture speak for itself. It is only when a person comes to the scriptures with a predetermined viewpoint that they then set out to prove that problems and disputes arise. Invariably disputes boil down to a failure by someone to stick with the basic principles of interpretation, particularly the principle of Context.

There are a handful of other references to the Second Coming but none of them add anything to what we already know. The Second Coming of Christ, and the attending events of the Rapture and First Resurrection, occurs on the day of the Lord, the last day of this age. At that time Antichrist will also be destroyed.

In conclusion we can safely say that the teachings of a Pre-tribulation rapture, or a partial rapture, or a mid-tribulation rapture do not stand in the light of Scripture. The only evidence we have ALL points to a post-tribulation rapture.

One thing is for sure, the teaching of both the gospels and the epistles is so clearly for a post-tribulation rapture of the Church that it is hard to miss the point. Another thing is for sure – there is no (clear) evidence for a partial rapture or for a pre, or mid, tribulation rapture. Nor is there any clear inferences for these doctrines. One has to read the idea into the scriptures to find it there.

There is no scripture that would indicate other than a post-tribulation, day of the Lord, rapture, unless it is wrested out of its context and given a meaning that it will not sustain when left to speak for itself, in context.

The Objection is often made: “Post Trib rapture denies the New Testament teaching of immanency; we are to expect Him at any moment.”

Question: Where exactly does the Bible say “we are to expect him at any moment”?

What the Bible says is we don’t know when he is coming so we are to be on the alert – but as far as I am aware it does not say “he could come at any moment” or that “we are to expect him at any moment”. That is a derived doctrine – and idea derived from statements of scripture by some people. But it does not necessarily hold up.

One of the guiding rules of scripture interpretation is that “No derived doctrine can contradict a plain statement of scripture”.

The "doctrine of immanency" is a “doctrine”. But whether or not it is a “New Testament doctrine” is up for debate. It cannot be "assumed" and then used as a "proof" of the Pretribulation rapture or of any other rapture theory. It has to stand on its own merits as a doctrine.

It is often said: "The early church believed "Christ could come at any moment!"

It may be that some did believe that - but were they right? This is a question that the NT would answer for us. It would also reveal if there were some who did not believe he could come again at any moment.

The evidence of the NT - which we have looked at – gives us no suggestion of an “immanent coming” if by that we mean, “there are no known prophetic events before it”. Every writer we looked at gives us events that they expected the church to see before the Second Coming.

As far we know Jesus did not teach imminence in the sense of immediacy, rather he taught that there would be a (significantly) long time between his going and his coming.