A critique of "50 Evidences for the Pre-Trib Rapture"

A critique of:

**50 Evidences for the Pre-Trib Rapture**
Historical Doctrine of Imminency
By Dr. Donald V. Erickson
(Dr. Erickson operates a website/blogsite on Prophecy and other issues)

Critique by me.

The original article is in ordinary type. The critique in italics.

1. The early church believed in the immanency of the Lord's return.

While it can be debated which church father said what, there is a consistency in the early church on immanency which is essential to the pre-trib position and in opposition to some other positions.

While no one can dispute that the early church expected Christ’s return almost immediately this is no guarantee that they were right in that belief. The Early Church had plenty of other wrong beliefs - take, for instance, the whole debate about the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It was 400 years before this was sorted out and "correct" doctrine imposed.

The comment in John 21:22,23 shows that many false beliefs were around about the immediacy of the Lord’s coming. The feeling of immanency they lived with however, does not exclude the belief in events preceding that coming as Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 show.

1&2 Peter shows Peter had an expectation of the Lord's near return, but this return was clearly expected on "the Day of the Lord" and Peter is clear in 2 Peter that there would be several events before the Lord's return:

(i) His own death.

(ii) The events of ch 3 - which it is clear by the language he uses that he expected the church to be around to see those events.

The Same is true in 2 Thessalonians - the only "Coming" Paul envisages is on the day of the Lord and that is preceded by certain events. But when Christ was to come we (the church) would be "gathered to meet him" (v1,2).

So the sense of immanency in the NT does not mean:

(i) "Christ could come at any moment" - all the NT witnesses to the Second Coming have specific events named before Christ will come.

(ii) "There are no known prophetic events to be fulfilled before the Second Coming" - rather all NT witnesses predict events before Christ's coming.

Also Christ himself repeatedly implied in his teaching that there would be a significantly long gap between his departure and return. See my previous article on the Second Coming in the NT.

2. The Pre-trib position is the ONLY one which truly teaches immanency.

This, of course, depends on how one defines immanency. If it is defined as Pre Tribs do as “Christ can come at any moment now” then by definition immanency only supports a Pre Trib rapture position. But the doctrine of immanency is not explicitly stated in scripture so is a derived doctrine, as is the Pre Trib Rapture, so it is dangerous to be too dogmatic about what immanency means. A looser definition of immanency such as. “we expect the Lord to return soon, maybe in our lifetime” would easily cover the Bible idea of immanency and not demand a Pre Trib position.

The doctrine of immanency has to stand or fall on its own merits when compared with scripture and not be bolstered by implications from other theories.

3. The fact that there is a greater development of the doctrine in recent centuries does not preclude it from the early centuries. In the very early years of the church you see the development of great
fundamentals doctrines of Trinity, Deity, God-man, canon of Scripture, etc. Following those early church councils is a time of decline in the corporate church into great apostasy. The teaching of that time are built on many of the heresies of Augustine. When the Reformation comes, there is a period of reestablishing the foundational doctrines of
salvation. Now, in these last days there is both and ability and a need in the church to better understand the doctrines of eschatology and the Spirit is continuing His ministry of guiding the church in all truth.

I agree wholeheartedly. Augustine did distort things with his reintroduction of Greek philosophy which the Church Councils had effectively weeded out of the church. The Reformation and following has led to a restoration and a discovery of truth which is a process still going on. But this point neither supports nor undermines a Pre Trib position. It just sounds good in a list.

4. The exhortation to be comforted by the "coming of the Lord" (1Thes 4:18) is valid only in the context of the pre-trib view. It could even be a fearsome thing in a post-trib view.

Not so. The context of 1 Thess and its references to the second coming cover more than just the last half of chapter 4. Refer to the following:

1:9,10. To wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

2:19 For what is our hope, our joy, or the crowns in which we shall glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes…

3:13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.

Then there is the large section from 4:17-5:11. The section quoted from ch 4 is not the whole context.

The interesting thing is that Paul nowhere says anything like the following:

“At this point I am talking about the rapture which will happen before the coming of Christ in Glory at the end of the Tribulation.” Or “At this point I am talking about Christ’s coming at the end of the Tribulation, on the day of the Lord.” Paul never makes that sort of distinction, But, in fact, he talks about the rapture (1 Thess 4:16,17) and goes right on talking about “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess 5:2) as if he is talking about the same thing. And after talking about the rapture he says we should be encouraged (4:18) which he does again after talking about the day of the Lord (5:11). In actual fact “comforted” may not be the best translation. “Encouraged” may be better. We will need courage.

But the reality is that the two “comforts/encouragements” have specific things attached to them that we should be encouraged/comforted by:

4:18 The fact that those who have already died are not going to miss out but will be raptured first. This should bring us encouragement.

5:11. The fact that we are not going to experience the wrath of God should bring us comfort. No matter what else happens we will not go through God’s wrath.

So in a sense the idea of “comfort” here does not necessarily support a pre trib rapture. There are reasons why it could support a post trib rapture position.

5. We are exhorted to look for the "Glorious Appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13) If there are any prophetic events (ie: tribulation) to come first, then this passage is nonsensical.

The nonsensical bit is this objection. The “Glorious appearing of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ” is not a reference to a pretribulation rapture at all. The idea of “Glory” and “appearing” associated with the second coming always point to the day of the Lord in scripture, not to a secret, silent rapture. By definition Titus 2:13 is talking about the day of the Lord. And as that is so there are two pertinent points we can make from Titus 2:13.

(i) WE (the church of Christ) are exhorted to look for the glorious appearing of Christ – not for some secret silent affair.

(ii) The event Paul is talking about is the day of the Lord so there are known prophetic events that will happen before it. Namely the tribulation and Antichrist.

And it is this coming of Christ - in power and glory - that Paul says is "our Blessed Hope" - not some secret rapture.

6. Again, we are to "purify ourselves" in view of his coming.(1 John 3:2-3) If his coming is not imminent then the passage is meaningless.

Why is it meaningless? The fact is this: our future rewards in heaven will be based primarily on the degree of holiness we attain in this life. Because this is true we should purify ourselves so that we maximize our inheritance in heaven. That makes perfect sense to me - irrespective of whether the rapture is Pre or Post Tribulation.

7. The church told *only* to look for the Coming of Christ. It is Israel and the tribulation saints that are told to look for signs.

This objection depends, of course, on one’s interpretation methodology and hermeneutic. Matthew 24 and it’s parallel passages in Luke and Mark are Jesus’ primary teaching on his second coming and the teaching was addressed to his disciples, not to the Jews. His disciples represent us, the church. If we start saying otherwise then we might as well cut the gospels out of our bibles altogether because none of Jesus’ teaching can have any relevance to us – it was all given to his disciples.

So if Matthew 24 is addressed to the church then Jesus gives the church plenty of signs to look for.

The same could be said of 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul there gives lots of signs of the Second Coming and it is patently obvious that 2 Thessalonians is addressed to the church not to Jews.

8. Nature of the Church

(Those who do not understand the nature of the church as unique in the program of God will continually be confused about the nature of His coming for the church.)

Dispensational (Pre tribulation) teachers make a great deal out of the distinction between Israel and the church and the unique nature of each. The problem with the Dispensational position is that it ends up perverting the teaching of the apostles in the NT about the place of Israel in the plan of God. I grew up believing this distortion but eventually came to realise it was a deception. The problem is that this doctrine overstresses the differences but forgets the clear teaching of Justification by faith and covenant in the NT which clearly states that natural birth (i.e. into Israel) never brought anyone into the covenant or into justification. Those blessings only ever came by faith – the same sort of faith Abraham had and that we also have.

9. The translation of the church is never mentioned in any context dealing with the second coming of Christ at the end of the Tribulation.

Again this depends on ones hermeneutic. If one assumes this is so before one starts then of course one will never find a reference to the church being raptured at the end of the tribulation. But if one lets the Bible speak for itself one may find differently. For instance:

(i) The passage already debated in 1 Thess 4&5. Paul talks about the rapture of the church and the “day of the Lord” in the same context.

(ii) And if that wasn’t enough, because the Thessalonians still had difficulty understand Paul wrote 2 Thess to them a few months later to explain further what he meant.

2 Thess 2:1 is as clear a reference to the rapture as one could hope for. “The coming of our Lord and our gathering to meet him.” The “our” refers to the church both times.

But then Paul immediately talks about the “day of the Lord” and events leading up to it as an explanation of the rapture.

He then concludes v8 by mentioning again Christ’s “coming” – without any clarification so we have to assume that by “coming” he means exactly the same coming as in v1.

So twice – in each of the letters to the Thessalonians – Paul joins the rapture to the Day of the Lord and in 2 Thess he actually goes out of his way to list a whole string of events that are going to happen before we “gather together to meet him”.

As you can see I am not doing any real interpretation here. Only using the laws of English grammar to say what it says.

10. The church is "not appointed to wrath" (Rom 5:9; 1 Thes 1:9-10). The church cannot enter into the "great day of their wrath."

I’m happy with this claim. But the writers' mistake is to confuse the “Wrath of God” with the "Tribulation". The two are not the same. A simple word study of “wrath” in a concordance will reveal that “wrath” when it means the “end time wrath of God” only ever occurs on the Day of the Lord – That great day when Christ and God appear in power and glory to set up their kingdom. Wrath is poured out on his enemies at that point. But no wrath is poured out during the tribulation. By the time wrath comes the tribulation is over. In a sense wrath is the last event of the tribulation.

The statement above “The church cannot enter into the great day of wrath” is actually not scriptural. What the scripture says is that, “God did not appoint us to wrath…” (1 Thess 5:9)– it doesn’t actually say we can’t be there on the day, only that we won’t be the recipients of it. And we will be there - with Christ in his victory train. But we are raptured before the wrath falls. It may be only one second before (who knows) but that will be enough. If the wrath of God falls at midday on the day of the Lord and we are raptured at 11:59:59 then the scripture in 1 Thess 5:9 will still be proved true.

The relationship between the events of the Tribulation and the Wrath of God I have covered in the notes of Revelation but to recapitulate:

(1) Revelation is a series of seven visions each having seven parts. The Seals, Trumpets and Bowls are the main time sequence visions as far as the Tribulation is concerned.

(ii) The Seventh Seal, Trumpet and Bowl are the same event - they are described identically with the phrase, "lightnings, thunder, loud noises, heavy hail, etc". This phrase is a description of "the Wrath of God" is vivid terms.

(iii) Each of these three visions talk of the "wrath of God" - but it is important to see WHEN that wrath is mentioned:

(a) The 6th Seal announces the coming of the Wrath - but the 7th Seal IS the wrath.

(b) The 7th trumpet tells us "thy wrath came". This is the song sung AFTER the seventh trumpet has completed.

But before the 7th Seal and trumpet we read of the safety of God's people.

The Bowls are all "wrath" but before the wrath comes we are told again of the safety of God's people (Rev 15).

So the "wrath" is at the very end of the Tribulation - it si not the Tribulation itself. Wrath comes on the "day of the Lord", which is the "day of Wrath."

The seals and trumpets are not wrath (except for the seventh of each). As I have explained in the text of Revelation:

(i) The Seals are the final outworking of the law of Sowing and Reaping acting on the curses of the broken covenant with Adam.

(ii) The Trumpets are the final outworking of the Law of Sowing and Reaping acting on the accumulated sin of mankind from 6000 years of rebellion. The "sins of the forefathers" have finally and fully come home to roost.

So there is a sense in which the Seals and Trumpets are not direct judgments of God and so not "wrath". Wrath is the direct judgment of God. The Seals and Trumpets are, rather, the reaping of man's sin and not the Wrath of God. Of course God has been, until the time of the Tribulation, holding back the full effects of our sins (in a similar way to how Romans 1 teaches God restrains the results of sin). And it is clear that this restraint of God on the effects of man's sin is removed in the Tribulation - but the actual events are not in themselves "inspired" by God - just "allowed" by God.

10. The Church will not be "overtaken by the Day of the Lord." (1 Thes 5:1-9) (Day of the Lord is another term for the great tribulation.)

This is just bad exegesis and interpretation. The Tribulation is not the day of the Lord. I have read hundreds of books on this subject and have never heard this idea before. Every writer in the history of the church that I have ever read has agreed that the “day of the Lord” is the last day of the tribulation when Christ comes in power and glory to set up his kingdom. The phrase “the day of the Lord” has never, to my knowledge, ever been identified with the tribulation before this document was posted.

11. The church will be "kept from the hour of testing that shall come upon all the world." (Rev. 3:10)

True. But what does “kept from the hour” mean?

In actual fact the Greek is better translated “Kept in the hour” in the sense that Israel was protected from the plagues in Egypt even though they were still physically present. The Greek here does not demand that the church be removed from the scene of the tribulation.

12. The believer will escape the tribulation (Luke 21:36).

The “It” referred to in Luke 21:36 - “it will come” - is not the tribulation but is “that day” (v34). The phrase “that day” or “the day“ is a sort of shorthand used right through the OT and NT to mean “the day of the Lord. So all that is promised here is that we will not experience the wrath on the day of the Lord, it has no reference at all to the tribulation. The problem is this objection is the wrong equation by the author of: day of the Lord = the tribulation.

13. It is in the character of God to deliver His own from the greatest times of trial. (Lot, Rahab, Israel, Noah,etc).

Hmmmm. Yes, But…

Rahab had to stay in the city until the Israelites broke through the walls. As her house was fairly high in the walls of Jericho ( she had to let the spies out in a basket) and the walls had just fallen down before the soldiers came and delivered her it must have been fairly rough sitting it out.

Noah didn’t miss the flood. All 365 days of it he sat in that ark. Every windy gale, every nearby volcanic eruption, all the pouring driving rain and the fountains of the deep erupting around him. He felt them all.

So it is not necessarily the nature of God to deliver his own out of trial. Rather he promises to deliver them through the trial. And that is quite a different thing. (1 Cor 10:13)

14. It is clear that there is a time interval between the translation of the church and the Return of Christ. (John 14:3)

John 14:3 doesn’t say that at all. What it says is this:

(i) Jesus is going away.

(ii) While he is away he will prepare a home for us.

(iii) He will come back to take us back to the home he has made.

What it doesn’t say is that there is a time gap between the translation of the church and the return of Christ.

15. Only the pre-trib position does not divide the Body of Christ on a works principle as does partial rapture does so clearly and others to a lesser extent. It becomes a climatic finale to the grand plan of
salvation.

I agree - all partial rapture theories do this. Hence I reject all partial rapture and mid - tribulation rapture theories. But this criticism does not apply to the post tribulation position.

16. The Scriptures are adamant that the church is undivided. In this age the church is divided by the continuing old nature in the believers. When we are glorified at the coming of Christ, the church is no more divided.

So what? This adds nothing to the argument as the Post Trib viewpoint never argues that the church will be divided in some way.

17. The godly remnant of the tribulation has the attributes seen in OT Israel and not the church. The church is not present in the prophecies of Revelation.

Again this depends on how one interprets Revelation. Rev is an apocalyptic and one of the features of apocalyptic is that they are symbolic. On my blog

stjohnrevelation.blogspot.com

you will find many proofs of how John has used symbolism to clearly mark out the church in the tribulation. If one assumes that Rev is symbolic and the symbols mean the church then there is no difficulty in finding the church in Revelation. It all boils down to hermeneutical assumptions made before one opens the book of Revelation - but are those assumptions right or wrong?

18. The pre-trib view, unlike the post-trib view does not confuse terms like "elect" and "saints" which apply to believers of all ages, as opposed to terms like "church" and "in Christ", which apply only to those who are the body of Christ in this age.

Sorry. I have been a post trib man for 30 years and have never confused these. The ones who confuse them seem to be the pre-trib writers. For instance Matt 24:31 "gather his elect" - pre-trib writers insist that this means "Jewish elect", whereas post-trib writers say this means "the followers of Christ" as it would appear to in context. So Pre-trib writers end up with a rapture at the end of the Tribulation that is exclusively for Jews only - if there are any Gentile converts to Christ in the Tribulation they miss out.

The Work of the Holy Spirit

19. The Holy Spirit is the Restrainer of evil in the world. He cannot be taken out as prophesied unless the church which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit is taken out.

Where does the Bible say the Holy Spirit is the restrainer? Not in 2 Thess 2 that’s for sure. It is an interpretation, and it is capable of other interpretations. For instance take a look at stjohnrevelation.blogspot.com notes on ch 17.

Chapter 17 discusses the restrainer. And its not the Holy Spirit!
Furthermore there is nowhere in scripture that explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world. Nowhere!

20. The Holy Spirit will be taken out before the "lawless one" is revealed. That lawless one will certainly be revealed in the tribulation. In fact, the tribulation begins with the signing of the covenant between that lawless one and Israel. That act will reveal him.

See above on the Holy Spirit.

Again "the coming of the lawless one being initiated by the signing of a covenant" is an interpretation of Daniel 9, the prophecy of the 70 weeks. It is an interpretation and many interpreters do not agree with it. At this point in time I personally do agree with it, and am working on a study for this blog that will cover that, and opposing interpretations. But to put it forward as a "proof" of a pre-tribulation rapture is not acceptable. It does not, in itself, prove a Pre-trib position.

21. The "falling away" in 2 Thes 2:3 would better be understood in its context as "the departure." This is a reference to the departure of the Holy Spirit as He indwells the church.

See above on the Holy Spirit. How this is a "proof" of the rapture I cannot see!

Why the phrase "falling away" cannot mean "a falling away from (the) faith, i.e. apostasy" I am not sure. This is the meaning Jesus give to it in Matthew 24:10-13:

(i) "Many will be offended".

(ii) "False prophets...will deceive many"

(iii) "The love of many will grow cold" - presumably this means "love for God" - this is the way Dispensational writers and teachers have always understood it in my experience.

22. The work of the Holy Spirit is making the church like Christ where they submit to death and persecution, whereas the OT saints (see many of the Psalms) and the tribulations saints cry out for vengeance (Rev 6:10)

Where does the Bible say, "the work of the Holy Spirit makes us Christians submit to persecution and death". Anyway submission to such on earth is not contrary to a desire for justice to be worked at the eternal Throne of God.

Again the interpretation of Rev 6 implied here depends on how one interprets Revelation. If one assumes there are no church age saints in Rev 4-19 (the Dispensational argument) then of course these are "tribulation saints" who are crying pout for vengeance.

But if these "saints" are "Christian saints" then "Christian saints" are seen to be crying out for "vengeance".

"Vengeance" is not quite the right word to describe their cry, however. What they are crying for is "justice" - a perfectly reasonable request for Christians to make of God, who is the "God of all Justice."

But this point is assuming what the writer of this article is trying to prove. He is offering "50 Proofs of the Pre-tribulation Rapture". What he has offered here is not a proof but is a corollary. It is true if there is a Pre-tribulation rapture - but it is not true if the rapture is post- tribulation.

The Hermeneutical Argument

23. Only the pre-trib view allows for a truly literal interpretation in all of the OT & NT passages regarding the great tribulation.

Not so. For the reasons:

(1) That pretrib scholars – along with everyone else – have to use the same scriptures to talk about the tribulation – and most of those are symbolic to start with. So nobody, not even pretrib scholars give a purely literal interpretation. It is just not possible given the fact that the relevant scriptures are, in many cases, symbolic.

For example: No Pre-tribulation scholar argues that:

(i) The three seven headed beasts in Revelation are literal.

(ii) "Babylon" is literal. (I do, but I have never seen a Pre-trib writer do so!).

Other examples could be given. Pre-trib writers are bound by the realisation that some of Revelation is symbolic - just as the rest of us are. The only question is, "How much?"

(2) Post -trib interpreters do not necessarily deny a literal fulfillment to OT (or NT) prophecies. For instance, I do not. Some may, I don't know. But it is not a fact that only a Pre-trib position allows one to be a literalist. In my experience Pre-trib writers often try to worm out of the clear literal, in context, meaning of passages that do not suit their theory.

24. Only the pre-trib position clearly distinguishes the church and Israel and God's dealing with each.

Not so. In fact I have read books on most of the major schools of interpretation and all clearly distinguish between Israel and the Church and God’s dealings with them. The difference is that some interpreters understand the Church to have superceded Israel in the plan of God, so that the prophecies to Israel are fulfilled in the church in a symbolic sense. There is good scriptural warrant for this position.

Other interpreters feel that those same scriptures have a double fulfillment - literally in Israel and symbolically in the Church. I would be more of this persuasion.

But the real point is that at the end of the age God’s dealings come together for Israel and the Church as the remnant of Israel are saved.

The Necessity of an Interval of Time between the Rapture and the Second Coming.

25. All believers must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10). This event is never mentioned in the account of events surrounding the second coming.

All 2 Cor 5:10 indicates is that there must be a time for judgment of Christians.

But it does not indicate when it will happen.

It could happen:

(i) Some time after the day of the Lord, or

(ii) On the day of the Lord AFTER the wrath has fallen, or,

(iii) It could happen in a moment of time as we are raptured (I tend to favour this idea). After all God has no difficulty in dealing with millions of people at once now, why should it be any different at the judgment seat?

But the real problem here is that when Christ comes on the day of the Lord eternity crashes in on time and the saints, the church, are translated into eternity. And time is not the same in eternity as it is on earth. Trying to tie in an eternal event (the judgment seat of Christ) with an earthly time frame of events is actually a waste of time.

However one has only to read all the references to the judgments of the saints in Revelation and other NT writings and it is clear that this judgment happens after/ with the Second Coming on the day of the Lord.

Other references to the judgment of Christians happening after the Second Coming on the day of the Lord have been noted in my paper on the end of the age and rapture in the NT, where I quote repeatedly from Leon Morris's conclusions in his book, "The Biblical doctrine of Judgment." There are actually several places in the NT that put the judgment of Christians and their reward after the Day of the Lord.

26. The "four and twenty elders" in Rev 4:1-5:14 are representative of the church. Therefore it is necessary that the church, undivided, be brought to glory before those events of the tribulation.

See my blog again on Revelation ch 4 where I demonstrate that these 24 elders are not men but angelic beings. So their presence in heaven proves nothing about the church’s whereabouts. I offer there several reasons why this does not suggest, or prove, the rapture has already occurred.

There is no doubt that they "represent" the people of God, but this is probably best understood to the "the people of God of all ages", so the number "24" = 12 + 12, the 12 patriarchs, and the 12 apostles.

27. There is clearly a coming of Christ for his bride before the second coming to earth. Rev 19:7-10.

Rev 19:7ff does not indicate that the rapture has taken place but only announces that it is about to take place. You need to read up on Jewish marriage customs and you would understand what is being said here. It is covered in my blog. The "Announcement" precedes the "coming of the Groom". The actual "coming of the Groom" is Rev 19:11ff.

28. Tribulation saints are not translated at the second coming of Christ but carry on ordinary activities. These specifically include farming, construction, and giving birth. (Is 65:20-25).

Again this depends on where one places the rapture. If it is a post trib rapture then "Tribulation saints" get raptured with the rest of us – after all they are believers in Christ like us. Why should they be treated any different?

Those that carry on normal life after the second coming have always, in my reading, been assumed to be those non Believers who survive Armageddon – of which there will be some. This has always been the understanding of every Dispensational writer I had heard or read, and it is a viewpoint I still agree with.

29. The Judgment of the Gentile nations following the second coming (Mat 25:31-46) indicates that both the saved and the lost are in a natural body which would be impossible if the translation had taken place at the second coming.

I think we are confusing “saved” here with being “invited into the earthly kingdom of Christ”. “Saved” is not used of these in the text. All this text teaches is that those alive after Armageddon will face a judgment. Those that pass muster will be allowed to live on, on earth. Those that fail will be consigned to Hell at that point of time. But “saved” they are not, in the sense of being believers in Christ and so thus raptured previously. No Post trib teacher that I know of suggests that raptured people are at this judgment. Pre-trib writers I have read and heard have always understood that these people being "judged" in Matt 25:31ff were:

(i) Not Christians and not raptured people,

(ii) Not "saved" in the Christian sense as a result of passing the judgment.

30. If the translation took place at the same time as the second coming, there would be no need to separating the sheep from the goats at the subsequent judgment. The act of the translation would be the separation.

This objection fails because of the answer to the above statement. We are not talking about “Christian sheep” here. (In case you think I am trying to avoid the problem remember I grew up believing and studying a pre-trib position. All the pre trib-writers and preachers heard all taught that the “sheep” here were not Christians but basically “good citizens”. So I am only arguing for what Pre-trib writers generally agree on and teach anyway - or at least they used to.)

31. The Judgment of Israel (Ez 20:34-38) occurs after the second coming and requires a regathered Israel. Again, the separation of the saved and the lost would be unnecessary if all the saved had previously been separated by a translation at the second coming.

Again fails because of the above answers.

Differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming.

32. At the Rapture, the church meets Christ in the air. At the second coming, Christ returns to the Mt of Olives.

So Christ is only allowed to do one thing? Who says?

Is it not possible that Christ could begin his descent from heaven and catch up the saints as in 1 Thess 4 and then continue down to the Mt of Olives? I see no reason why not. We know there is a judgement seat of Christ and a marriage supper of the Lamb and Armageddon and the judgment of the sheep and goats and a few other events BUT WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW IS WHEN THESE EVENTS TAKE PLACE, NOR DO WE KNOW WHAT ORDER THEY OCCUR IN. Anyway, as I have already argued, the judgement seat of Christ for Christians could take place in an instant, a fraction of a second while we are being raptured. It doesn't need to take a long time.

33. At the time of the Rapture, the Mt of Olives is unchanged. At the second coming it is divided forming a valley east of Jerusalem.

Where does the Bible say that "at the time of the rapture the Mt of Olives is unchanged". This is an assumption of the writer. If, in fact, the rapture and second coming are the same event then the Mt of Olives is divided at the rapture (or actually, just after it). But this "proof" proves nothing. It is another red herring in a list to put people off the scent.

34. At the time of the rapture, saints are translated. No saints are translated at the time of the second coming.

Been said before in this list but it still has no proof for it. I have listed in my article of the Second Coming several scriptures that say otherwise. The root problem with this writers assumptions is the assumption that second coming is not on the "Day of the Lord". This is because he is assuming the following equation: "day of Lord = Tribulation" - and this equation is false.

35. At the time of the rapture, the world is not judged for sin, but descends deeper into sin. At the second coming, the world is Judged by the King of kings.

Where does the Bible teach that "after the rapture the world descends into deeper sin?" I know Dispensational teachers say so (based on 2 Thess and Rev primarily) but if the rapture is on the day of the Lord then it is simply not so.

This argument thus does not "prove" a Pre-trib rapture but is a corollary from it.

36. The translation of the church is pictured as a deliverance from the day of wrath, whereas the coming of Christ is a deliverance for those who have suffered under severe tribulation.

The first half of this I agree with – but the day of wrath is the Day of the Lord so it doesn’t help a pretrib argument.

But where does it say the coming of Christ is a deliverance for those who have suffered tribulation? Matt 24 maybe? But it doesn’t prove or disprove a pretrib rapture.

37. The rapture is immanent whereas there are specific signs which precede the second coming.

Back to this again. But it all depends on how one defines “immanent”.

38. The translation of living believers is a truth revealed only in the NT. The second coming with the events surrounding it is prominent in both OT and NT.

True. But it proves nothing about which view of the rapture is correct. We all agree with the doctrine of "Progressive Revelation" - that there were things "hidden" from the OT prophets and writers which were revealed to the NT writers. The fact that the doctrine of the rapture ONLY APPEARS IN THE NT (a point which I agree with) only proves or illustrates the Doctrine of Progressive Revelation, it offers no proof one way or the other for a pre-trib or a post - trib rapture.

39. The rapture is only for the saved, while the tribulation and second coming deals with the entire world.

Also true. But it does not prove that the rapture is not one of the events that happens at the time of the second coming. As an argument it proves nothing as to whether the rapture is Pre-trib or post-trib. It is simply a statement of fact.

40. No unfulfilled prophecy stands between the church and the rapture. Many signs must be fulfilled before the second coming of Christ.

Who says, "no unfulfilled prophecy stands between us and the rapture?" Not the Bible – only some teachers who say it on their own authority.
Funny thing – people have been saying that for nearly 200 years – and God keeps on fulfilling prophecies. Surely this means that there were, in God’s plan, prophecies to be fulfilled before the rapture and there may still be! One would think that this claim of there being “no prophecy to be fulfilled” would have died with the reestablishment of Israel as a nation. Honesty would have caused it to die, but the teachers did a bit of slight of hand and changed the statement to “there is no KNOWN prophetic event to be fulfilled before the rapture.” In that way they felt they could continue to preach an immanent rapture even though God was proving them wrong.

The trouble with this slight of hand is this: "no known event" - known by who? If God knows and knew there were events prophecied before the rapture then there were, in actual fact, known events prophecied before the rapture. The fact that some Bible interpreters can't find them doesn't change the facts.

41. No passage in either OT or NT deals with the resurrection of the saints at the second coming nor mentions the translation of living saints at that same time.

Haven’t we seen this above already? I answer it in my article on the Second Coming. It is simply not true.

The Nature of the Tribulation

42. Only the pre-trib view maintains the distinction between the "great tribulation" and the tribulations in general which we all experience.

Nonsense. Post trib views and partial rapture views all clearly distinguish these. This is a fallacious claim.

43. The great tribulation is properly understood in the pre-trib view as a preparation for the restoration of Israel. (Deut 4:29-30. Jer 30:4-11, Dan 9:24-27, Dan 12:1-2)

Why and how? One can say this but what does it mean? I'm glad he said, "In the pre-trib view". But that may not be the "proper" understanding of the passages he refers to. It is a matter of opinion.

44. Not one single passage in the OT which discusses the tribulation, mentions the church.

What a stupid objection! Of course not! That is because the church was "a mystery hidden in God" (Ephesians ch 2&3). The OT writers were not privy to this mystery, so of course they did not mention it. Again we are back to the doctrine of Progressive Revelation. The non- mention of something in the OT (or anywhere else for that matter) does not and cannot prove or disprove a Pre-trib rapture view.

45. Not one single passage in the NT which discusses the tribulation, mentions the church.

Untrue - 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is a clear case in point, "Our gathering together to meet him" - where "our" must surely mean "the church" and "gathering together" must refer to the rapture. Paul then clearly says "this will not happen until these things happen first" and then he goes on to talk about the Tribulation events.

46. In contrast to mid trib or pre-wrath views, the pre-trib view offers an adequate explanation for the beginning of the great tribulation in Rev 6. These others are clearly refuted by the plain teaching of Scripture that the great tribulation begins long before the 7th trumpet of Rev 11.

I’m not sure what you are on about here. But whatever it doesn’t apply to a post trib view.

Both post-trib and mid trib interpretations assume the Great Tribulation starts in Rev 6 - just as Pre-Trib writers do. There is no difference - the explanations given are just the same.

How "the others" (Presumably post-trib and mid-trib views) are "refuted" by the argument you put up here is totally beyond me as they argue exactly the same time chronology (from Daniel) for the tribulation as the Pre-trib view - with one exception, the rapture.

47. There is no proper groundwork provided that the 7th trumpet of Rev is the last trumpet of 1 Cor 15. It is accepted only on the basis of assumption. The pre-trib view maintains the proper distinction between the prophetic trumpets of the church and the trumpets of the tribulation.

Again read my blogs on the seven trumpets and also

christianfoundation.blogspot.com

Where I spend some time showing that the last trumpet of 1 Cor 15 and the 7^th trumpet must be the same. The distinction you make here between "the trumpets of Revelation" and the "prophetic trumpets of the church" is a new one on me. Completely novel - and I have been around for over 55 years reading this stuff. Where are the "prophetic trumpets of the church" taught about in scripture so that I can go away and study up on them? Or is the idea an invention of your own (it looks like it is) to try to deflect the obvious connection between the "last trumpet" and then "seventh trumpet". Obviously if these two trumpets are one and the same then the whole pre-trib view (and mid-trib and partial views) dissolves into nothingness and a Post-trib view remains supreme as the only interpretation of scripture possible.

48.The Unity of Daniel's 70th week is maintained by the pre-trib view. By contrast, the mid-trib view destroys the unity and confuses the program for Israel and the church. The post trib view usually denies the clear teaching of the 70th weeks by subverting it into some form or another of allegory.

In my experience the post trib view does not deny the clear teaching or subvert it into an allegory. Some writers may, but the majority hold to a literal 70^th week (which, of course, is not a literal week but is a symbol for a period of 7 years). The fact that the 70th "week" of Daniel is already divided into two halves by Daniel 9:27 means that your attack on the Mid-trib position is unjustified. There are significant events at the mid point of the 70th week, Daniel says so. The only question is what else should be put in there also. The mid-trib view suggests the rapture. I disagree with them, but for the same reasons I disagree with the pre-trib view.

49. The gathering of saints after the tribulation is done by angels whereas the gathering of the church is done by "The Lord Himself."

Let’s see some textual proof for this distinction. The calling of us forth by the Lord (1 Thess 4) does not exclude the angels actually doing it.

Matthew 13 may indicate otherwise in the two parables of harvest and fishing. These clearly apply to Christ's disciples and it is the angels who do the work.

Revelation 14:14-20 is a scripture of some relevance here. In this passage there are "two reapings" of the earth - one of the righteous and the other of the unrighteous. This conforms to Leon Morris' teaching on Judgement mentioned in my article on the Second Coming/rapture on this blog site: The righteous and unrighteous have to be reaped together. These two "reapings" are clearly at the end of the Tribulation - the context demands this. The first "reaping" is carried out by a Being sitting on a white cloud who looks like the Son of Man. In other words, Jesus. So the reaping of the righteous (whether the people are Jewish or Gentile is irrelevant to this point) at the end of the Tribulation is carried out by Jesus here in Rev 14. Yet in Matt 24:31 this same reaping is clearly carried out by angels. These are clearly the same reaping - unless there is suddenly going to be two reapings of the righteous on the last day. So it would seem that there is no contradiction between (i) Jesus reaping the righteous and (ii) the angels reaping the righteous - it is the same thing. Exactly the same as being "caught up with a shout and a trumpet call" (1 Thess 4). These are simply metaphors to describe a great future reality. Presumably the trumpet will sound, the archangel will shout, the angels will gather his elect and Jesus will reap his harvest - but I doubt that Jesus will literally have in his hand a golden sickle. That is a symbol.

50. Rev 22:17-20 And the Spirit and the Bride say come. And he that heareth, let him say come ... He who testifieth of these things saith .

Again this is not a proof of anything.

SUMMARY:

So "50 proofs" are reduced to very little at all. The disappointing thing about the article was the real shortage of scriptural material. Some points quoted small lines of scripture - out of their context and often incapable of meaning what was said they meant when put back into context. It was an argument of emotion, and so easily destroyed by straight exegetical work.

It is disappointing that such a pointless set of "proofs" was produced by someone who is a "Doctor" - presumably a Doctor of Theology or he wouldn't be trying to pass himself off as an expert of Scriptural things. I would have expected better exegetical work from a Doctor of Theology. If someone with as little theological background as myself can make mincemeat of it then it wasn't very well presented.

One thing which should be noted is this: The "Doctrine of the Pre-tribulation Rapture" and the "Doctrine of Immanency" are not the same thing.

Dr. Erickson in his title, and throughout the article, assumes that they are one and the same thing. They are not.

"Immanency" is an argument put forward to support a Pre-trib position, but it is not the same thing as the Pre-trib position. A defense of the Pre-trib position could be made with no reference to Immanency at all. In my view such a defense would still be wrong, but I am here simply making the point that the equation: "Immanency = the Pre-trib rapture doctrine" is not necessarily so. It is only so if one has a very specific definition of what "immanency" means. As I have suggested in this post there are other possible, broader definitions of the word that some scholars would be happy to subscribe to without adopting the Pre-trib view of the rapture.

Another very disappointing feature of the article is Dr. Erickson's very plain lack of knowledge about the very school of thought he was writing to support. For example, to make equations such as: "The Tribulation = the Day of the Lord" is completely novel, as far as I can tell, with Dr. Erickson. It is not the belief held by Dispensational (Pre-Trib rapture) writers in general.

Another disappointing feature was his clear lack of research into relevant scriptures. Bold claims were made, for example in point #49, which if he had simply bothered to read all of the scriptures relevant to that subject he would not have fallen into the trap of making wrong claims.

In all, very disappointing. Though it did give me a bit of fun pulling it apart.

John

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.