Last Trump

Dear brethren, how can you say that Mt24,1Cor15&1Thess4 are connected by similar themes if the passage in Matthew is missing the two key elements of resurrection and rapture? The only thread that links them together is the Lord's coming. But if as I am contending, the passages in 1Cor15&1Thess4 refer to Christ's coming for the church and the passage in Mt24 refers to His coming for Israel the two aspects of His coming need not be the same, and therefore the trumpets mentioned would be different trumpets.

 

This is a perfect example of nonsequitur reasoning.

Basically what is argued here is that if they don't all have the same details they are talking about different events.

But consider:

We have four accounts of the life of Christ, each with details that the others don't have. We don't assume 4 lives of Christ on that account.

So the underlying assumption is false.

Really if we want to be logical then we must admit that the only way to say that these scriptures MUST refer to different events is if they have contradictory information. But they don't. Given that, and given the obvious linkages mentioned already, it makes better sense to see these passages as talking about the same thing, not different things.

 

Yes, not all passages about a subject always mention all the same things. But that is faulty reasoning as Latreia indicated, and that is why I listed the details of each passage. Not that 1 Cor 15:51-52 doesn't mention angels, a shout, a gathering, or clouds - which are all mentioned in 1 Thess 4:16-17. 1 Cor 15:51-52 doesn't even mention the Lord's coming! Yet you connect them together based on less commonality that Matt 24:29-31 has!

Not only have you not proven that two aspects = two events rather than two views of the same event, you still have not explained why in two closely-timed events, the first trump of the list is termed the "last" trump.

 

Exactly. This is the only example I can think of where people don't connect passages together with so many similarities and no contradictions. In any other topic of Biblical study, the connection would be easily and readily made. But here, I think people just don't want to make the connection, not because there is a scriptural reason not to make the connection, but because they don't like the implications of the connection.

 

"Exactly. This is the only example I can think of where people don't connect passages together with so many similarities and no contradictions. In any other topic of Biblical study, the connection would be easily and readily made. But here, I think people just don't want to make the connection, not because there is a scriptural reason not to make the connection, but because they don't like the implications of the connection."

IMO, you have to start with the assumption that the passages are not related, because I don't see how one can read them and not see the links.

 

Context, context, context!

Matthew 24 speaks to the Jew, not the church. It concerns Israel, not Gentiles. The church can be excluded here through it not being mentioned and also by context, context, context. (Did I say that already?)

I Thessalonians is written to the church, Jew and Gentile, but not Israel as a nation.

In Matthew 24 Jesus is answering the questions of the disciples in verse 3:
"When shall these things be?" What things? The destruction of the temple spoken of by Jesus in verse 2.
"and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world?" To the Jew the end of the world was the end of that age, the new age would be when Christ came to rule and reign and the Davidic covenant and other OT covenants are fulfilled TO THE LETTER! (Sorry Covenant theologians, but they will be fulfilled.) Jesus will come to rule and reign AFTER the tribulation period, 7 years after the trump in I Thessalonians has been sounded.

In Matthew 24:31, according to context, we have a differet trump to that sounded in I Thessalonians.

In I Thessalonians the message is directed to a church concerned that they will have to endure the Tribulation. Paul writes to assure them that the Lord will rapture them before the Tribulation starts.

Matthew 24 - Post-trib-trump
I Thessalonians - Pre-trib-trump



(Try saying "Post-trib-trump, Pre-trib-trump" ten times fast!)

 

How can it be faulty reasoning to equaten two passages together which have so much in common , but exclude one which is entirely different? Look at the Mt24 passage again when the trumpet is sounded it is the signal for the angels to gather the elect (of Israel) from the four winds, but when the Lord returns for the church Blessed truth, He is coming for us personally. Again I stress and await an answer where is the rapture and the resurrection in Mt24? They are not there yet both are in place in the other two passages. M Wickens has got it right Mt24 is the post -Trib Trumpet, 1Cor15 &1Thess4 refer to the pre -Trib Trumpet.

 

MWickens,

I assure ou that I am well within context in taking Matthew 24 to refer to the church. There is in fact nothing which indicates that te words of Chroist refer only to ethnoc Jews. And the fact is that we take everything else Jesus says as applying to the church in some way. There is no reason beyond the a priori to say that Matthew 24 does not apply to the church. it is a distinction which cannot be maitianed with any consistency.

I'm sorry to have to differ vut there is no reason to think that the two trumps differ.

Dr. Steve,

It has been demonstrated how there is no real differnece between all the passages. You ignore the similarities in the text in favour of a differnece you read into the text of Matthew 24.

Is there a good reason to suspect that Jesus is narrowing the intended audience to the nation of Israel here? Let's see:

It is argued that the question in Matt. is about the millennial kingdom and so cannot be about the church. But this is not plausible since it requires: 1) That Jesus answers a different question in Mk and Lk than in Matt, but there is no indication of this.

2)This assumes that Jesus answers questions about the destruction of the temple and the coming of the kingdom in almost identical terms. The similarities imply that it is wrognto separate things in the way suggested.

3) It is implausible to think that the disciples are not in view as representatives of the church in light of hte parallel between Matt 28:20 and Matt 24:3. It is very hard to see why the Parousia and the consummation ofthe Kingdom would not be relevant to the church.

On the other hand there are several things that indicate that the church IS in view, that the discipes are her, as elsewhere, representative of the all believers. (It is important to note that we are not here exckluding Israel, but rather we are including the church.)

1) Matt 24-25 are obviously parallel to the relevant passages regarding the Parousia in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. (I can provide all the parallels if required.) In those two passages Paul describes what Jesus puts forth as a single event. Hence it is illegitimate to separate the passages. It should be obnvious that if Paul is addressing the church, then Jesus, who says virtually the same thing, is also addressing the church.

2) The fact of the "elect". This word appears in Matt 24:22,24,31. It is also used in the NT and especially Paul to refer to the church.

3) The same exhortations that occur in Matthew 24:36-25:13 also appear in other contexts of theother synoptics (eg. Lk 12:39-46; 19:11-27) where it is obviously the church (in the presonof the disciples) being addressed.

4) References to the Rapture in Matt 24. Since ther is no rapture of national Israel, if here arereferences to the Raptture in Matthew 24 then this cinclusively proves that Matt 24 is talkign to the disciples as representative of the church. There are indeed passages which may allude to the Rapture: Matt. 24:31 (cf. 1Co. 15:51,52; 1Thess. 4:16,17; 2Thess. 2:1) and Matt 24:40,41 (cf. Lk. 17:34,35; Jn. 14:3.

 

I think that fact is important. You are making a big deal about the "Jewish context" of the passage, and I agree there is a Jewish flavour. But even you recognize that Jesus is answering the *apostles*. The apostles are part of the church.

No, not according to context. Nothing in either context precludes them being them the same trump. You have not demonstrated why the scriptural similarities should *not* tie them together, you have only jumped to a conclusion based on an opinion about context.

Where, I must have missed where Paul said this. Please provide the verse where Paul says this.

And yet the first trump in that sequence is called the "last" trump, and the resurrection at the second one is called the "first" resurrection. Right.

The passage does not say "the elect (of Israel)", it says "the elect". He gathers all the elect together. Yet what does 1 Thess 4 say? He brings saints with him (v14), and catches the living up to the air "together with them". This is also a gathering of the elect.

And again I stress that not all passages have to mention ever single event in order to be parallel. Again I stress and await an answer where is the Lord's coming, the gathering, the clouds, or angels mentioned in 1 Cor 15:51-52? Why do you connect it to 1 Thess 4:16-17, when it has even *less* in common?

 

Latreia.
Is there a good reason to suspect that Jesus is narrowing the intended audience to the nation of Israel here? It would be more acturate to ask is there any good reason to suspect that jesus is widening the intended audience to include the church? Jesus a Jew came to His own people Israel most of His ministry was to the Jews.The mistake a lot of people make is to read back the church into everything, even the Old Testament.

 

Quit misusing Brian T's name. It's insulting when he's been a gentleman to you. You've done it more than once.

So you're saying there are 2 raptures? One for Jews and one for Gentiles? Are these raptured Jews Christian or Messianic Jews?
Seems a bit of a stretch and preconception to me.

[ September 27, 2002, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Brian T.
There are no clouds or angels (plural) because a different event is in view. It is Christ's return for His church, not His return with His church. But I guess you are not a pre triber, so enjoy the tribulation, thank God I won't be there.

[ September 27, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

What are you taking about optional two raptures, there is only one for the church and its not found in Mt24. Re misusing brian T's name, wise up.

[ September 28, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

1 Cor 15:51-52 is a different event than 1 Thess 4:16-17? You are the first pretribber in the world that I have ever met who thinks this.

And, as I've already mentioned, 1 Thess 4 mentions both coming "with" his church (v14) and for his church (v17) at the same time. The "elect" (Col 3:12) are gathered from all of earth and heaven, just like it says in Mark 13:27 (the parallel to Matt 24:31).

Do you believe that one must *believe* the pretrib rapture to be raptured prior to trib? This is not about a personal preference, but what scripture is saying.

Brian this and former posts have been edited to correctly spell your name. Murph

[ September 27, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

It is actually inaccurate to ask if Jesus is "widening" the audience. The question is: whom do the disciples represent in the Olivet Discourse. Are they representative of national Israel, or the Church?

The fact is that NNE doubts that in almost every context the disciples are taken to represent us. That's why we take Jesus' words to them as words to us as well. So the "default" position if you will is to regard the disciples as representing the church. ONLY if the context clearly requires a restriction should we consider acepting a narrower audiece. And those contextual factors are missing.

I gave you a lot of evidence to demonstrate that, which you have not responded to.

You chose istead to deal with what you seemingly felt wa a mistaken assumption on my part. I havbe now shown that this is not mistaken. The burden is clearly on those who would narrow the audiecne to justify their contention. In any event the amount of evidence I provided would suffice to make my case even if the brden were mine.

 

Same non sequitur reasoning. Yo must think there were four crucifixions of four Christs!

There is no distinction in scriture between a coming for and coming with the church in Scripture. Do a check on the words themselves for the second advent. Apokalupsis, epiphaneia, and parousia all are used to refer to the posttribulational returnof Christ. Further all three are said to be objects of the believer's hope. It is hard to see how there could be a pretribulational coming if th ebeliver is told to hope for a posttribulational coming.

As for the Tribulation itslef, you should tone down the rhetoric. It isn't like pos-tribbers are masochists. But what you need to understand is that a posttrib eschatology is more in keeping witht he gospel itself; victroy is ultimately through suffering. It was for Christ, why should we expect it to be less so?

If I were more rhetorically inclined in these kinds of discussions, I could easily say " I fear for your faith when the tribulation comes and your still here. Will your faith in Christ survive the death of your faith in a get ourt of tribulation free card?"

But such would not further the discussionat all.

[ September 27, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I am not premill nor post but amill... Enlighten me on some scriptures...

Matthew 16: 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9: 1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

John 21: 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Here is the question that bears examination... Christ told some of them they would not taste death till he came. He also told Peter that John would still be around when he did come... Not only that but he would not die. So in other words John would be the only Apostle alive when Jesus came and all the others would be dead.
So when did Christ come?... From his own mouth he said he would come before John died.
If this is not a fact then we have a 2,000 plus year old Apostle still wandering the earth somewhere.
Amills believe the we are living in the kingdom that the Lord set up when he was here called his church. Upon this ROCK I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is a triumphant church and there also is a visible church. We all worship in the church that the Lord set up in the world and if not then the kingdom never came. Not one on here will deny Pentecost but you deny the Lord came in Johns lifetime... The same John who is also the Revelator but that is another story!... Brother Glen

 

Perhaps you should start another thread, as we are not really discussion millennial positions here, but rather rapture positions. It should be an interesting discussion, but getting into those passages too deeply at in this thread would side-track the current topic of conversation.

A side-note: what you are saying is not really amillennialism. Amillennialism holds that Christ's coming is still future, just that the "1000 years" of Rev 20 (and thus the "kingdom") is the time between his first coming and his second. If you believe Christ's second coming already happened some 1900 years ago in John's lifetime (which I think is a wrong interpretation of those passages), what you describe is not amillennialism but full preterism.

 

Deleted by Tyndale for the continuity of the thread!

[ September 28, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Brian T. What makes you think that I believe that 1Cor15 is different from 1Thess4? Did I mistakenly post something? Because I thought my argument along was that these two passages were equivalent speaking of the same event.