3 Differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ

[Revmitchell]

1. There is a difference in the place Christ meets believers

A. At the rapture Christ meets Christians in the air (I Thess 4:16-17).
B. At the second coming Christ meets Christians on the Mount of Olives (Zech 14:2-4)

2. There is a difference in who removes people from the earth.

A. At the rapture Christ gathers believers (I Thess 4:16-17).
B. At the second coming Christ sends his angels to gather the wicked (Matthew 13:41-42; 47-50; 24:37-39; 40-41)

- It is interesting when Christ deals with the wicked he send His angels. When He deals with believers He comes Himself. This is seen when God was dealing with Abraham and lot.

3. There is a difference in who is taken from the earth.

A. In the rapture the Christians are taken from the earth and the wicked are left.
B. At the second coming the wicked are taken from the earth and the believers are left.
(same passages)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaphGzaTcZ8

 

[Darrell C]

1. There is a difference in the place Christ meets believers

A. At the rapture Christ meets Christians in the air (I Thess 4:16-17).
B. At the second coming Christ meets Christians on the Mount of Olives (Zech 14:2-4)

2. There is a difference in who removes people from the earth.

A. At the rapture Christ gathers believers (I Thess 4:16-17).
B. At the second coming Christ sends his angels to gather the wicked (Matthew 13:41-42; 47-50; 24:37-39; 40-41)

- It is interesting when Christ deals with the wicked he send His angels. When He deals with believers He comes Himself. This is seen when God was dealing with Abraham and lot.

3. There is a difference in who is taken from the earth.

A. In the rapture the Christians are taken from the earth and the wicked are left.
B. At the second coming the wicked are taken from the earth and the believers are left.
(same passages)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaphGzaTcZ8

Another to add would be: in the Rapture the entire Church is resurrected; in the Second Coming only those who have died are.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

The only problem is that there is no definitive Scripture proving a pre-trib-rapture. There is a definitive passage of Scripture that defines a general resurrection and a general judgment of all mankind!

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The hour is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.

That is as clear as it can be stated. ALL that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth!

**********************************************************************************************************

 

[Revmitchell]

The only problem is that there is no definitive Scripture proving a pre-trib-rapture. There is a definitive passage of Scripture that defines a general resurrection and a general judgment of all mankind!

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The hour is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.

That is as clear as it can be stated. ALL that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth!

**********************************************************************************************************

Brother I know you and I disagree on this, but your post here simply talks past the op rather than addresses it. Can you go back, address the op, and show how what I have shown to be the differences between the two are actually one and the same?

 

[Greektim]

1. There is a difference in the place Christ meets believers

A. At the rapture Christ meets Christians in the air (I Thess 4:16-17).
The word actually connotes a meeting outside and return w/ the king... as in an immediate return not a 7 year waiting period to return
B. At the second coming Christ meets Christians on the Mount of Olives (Zech 14:2-4)
Does this say that Christ meets anyone on the Mount of Olives?
2. There is a difference in who removes people from the earth.

A. At the rapture Christ gathers believers (I Thess 4:16-17).
B. At the second coming Christ sends his angels to gather the wicked (Matthew 13:41-42; 47-50; 24:37-39; 40-41)
Reapers gather both the wheat and the tares so that breaks down your analogy; Matt 13:30

- It is interesting when Christ deals with the wicked he send His angels. When He deals with believers He comes Himself. This is seen when God was dealing with Abraham and lot. see above

3. There is a difference in who is taken from the earth.

A. In the rapture the Christians are taken from the earth and the wicked are left.
B. At the second coming the wicked are taken from the earth and the believers are left.
(same passages)
Thus the same problem as #2. Plus the order of the separating is different in the Matt 13 parables. So that can't be used as a definitive argument either. Also, those passages don't really say that the believers are left on earth. That you are supplying based on your theological implications.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaphGzaTcZ8

I agree... some here who disagree will talk right past you. I at least try to offer something.

As for 1 Thess 4 and the word for "rapture", see this article: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm

If you can refute it, then we can talk.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree... some here who disagree will talk right past you. I at least try to offer something.

As for 1 Thess 4 and the word for "rapture", see this article: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm

If you can refute it, then we can talk.

I grow tired of the reference to "Left Behind" as if that is where all people who are dispensational get their theology from. Surprisingly from Wright it is a rather childish reference and has no place in serious discourse.

Secondly Wright makes some claims about about the imagery being pulled form the OT in order to "enhance" what Paul is saying but then he stops there. No real support just claims that is what it is. I would offer an alternative claim. While the references may resemble those passages it could also be a result of God's consistent nature and actions when He is presenting Himself in a literal sense. The plain reading of I Thess 4 is all of these things will literally happen and are not just allegorical language.

I do agree with Wright that God will remake heaven and earth. However, the issues he takes with the use of Heaven "being up there" rather than another dimension is pure speculation and cannot be supported from scripture. Reasonable people should drop that kind of speculation. It looks foolish.

It is my position that the reference to heaven may be a reference to a physical place where God abides but more likely is just referencing the position Jesus will be in at the rapture.Coming form above the earth. Heaven is also, in many places in scripture, a reference to the space just above the land of the earth.

I also take issue with the title to the article. It is as if Wright is declaring the debate over. First, the word rapture comes from scripture so that gets ignored. Second, it is not now nor will it be over.

Now, your article only addresses one small part of the op. Care to take on the entire op?

 

[Greektim]

Now, your article only addresses one small part of the op. Care to take on the entire op?

Um... I did... my responses were in red.

And my main point, which I didn't really emphasize, w/ the Wright article is to show you the lexical basis for how the word in 1 Thess 4 gets misused by literalists. If you wanted to take it literally, then the connotation is that we go to meet Jesus in the air to immediately return with him.

 

[Revmitchell]

The word actually connotes a meeting outside and return w/ the king... as in an immediate return not a 7 year waiting period to return

No it doesn't it means to plucked or pulled or taken by force.

Does this say that Christ meets anyone on the Mount of Olives?

So in your mind Christ could stand on the Mt of Olives and Isolate Himself?

Reapers gather both the wheat and the tares so that breaks down your analogy; Matt 13:30

You need to go back and read vs. 41-43. Jesus clears that up.

see above

You need to go back and read who it is that approached Abraham and who it is that approached Lot.

Thus the same problem as #2. Plus the order of the separating is different in the Matt 13 parables. So that can't be used as a definitive argument either. Also, those passages don't really say that the believers are left on earth. That you are supplying based on your theological implications.

Neither does it say they are taken. My position is reasonable

 

[Revmitchell]

Um... I did... my responses were in red.

And my main point, which I didn't really emphasize, w/ the Wright article is to show you the lexical basis for how the word in 1 Thess 4 gets misused by literalists. If you wanted to take it literally, then the connotation is that we go to meet Jesus in the air to immediately return with him.

Uh no, sorry its not. It is we are taken by force in a quick and unexpected manner. We are taken in a manner that we are unaware that it is to occur until it has happened.

But to be honest the article is a wash for me. The entire thing is based on "Left Behind" and if no one has studied this issue for themselves and only get their theology from that. Personally I have never once read any of the books nor have I seen the movies. They hold no interest for me. I have great respect for Wright and in the article you linked to he made a few statements I agree with. As a whole the article is more insulting than anything else. Wright has the ability to address this issue without such demonization. Why he chose not to is beyond me. If you have something else other than that article I will be glad to address it. I have responded to it all I am going to.

 

[OldRegular]

No it doesn't it means to plucked or pulled or taken by force.

So the Church, all the redeemed of all time, will be taken out whether they want to go or not. Sounds a lot like "irresistible Grace"!

So in your mind Christ could stand on the Mt of Olives and Isolate Himself?

And what happens when the Mount of Olives splits in two?

You need to go back and read vs. 41-43. Jesus clears that up.

Simply states that the wicked are cast into the lake of fire consistent with Revelation 20:11-15.

Now consider what jesus Christ promises in Matthew 28:16-20
16. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Just the promise of Jesus Christ that he will be with the Church as it witnesses on earth until the end of the world. Nothing about "irresistible Grace" snatching an unwilling Church out of the world!

****************************************************************************************************

 

[Greektim]

Uh no, sorry its not. It is we are taken by force in a quick and unexpected manner. We are taken in a manner that we are unaware that it is to occur until it has happened.

But to be honest the article is a wash for me. The entire thing is based on "Left Behind" and if no one has studied this issue for themselves and only get their theology from that. Personally I have never once read any of the books nor have I seen the movies. They hold no interest for me. I have great respect for Wright and in the article you linked to he made a few statements I agree with. As a whole the article is more insulting than anything else. Wright has the ability to address this issue without such demonization. Why he chose not to is beyond me. If you have something else other than that article I will be glad to address it. I have responded to it all I am going to.

The word in question is "meet" Jesus in the air not the catching away. After all, that is your main point. Jesus supposedly meets people on the Mt. of Olives (again, the text doesn't say that, you are supplying that concept) versus us meeting Jesus in the air. My point is that the word for "meet" connotes a group of emissaries going out to meet the returning king and immediately accompanying him on the return.

 

[Revmitchell]

The word in question is "meet" Jesus in the air not the catching away. After all, that is your main point. Jesus supposedly meets people on the Mt. of Olives (again, the text doesn't say that, you are supplying that concept) versus us meeting Jesus in the air. My point is that the word for "meet" connotes a group of emissaries going out to meet the returning king and immediately accompanying him on the return.

Again, Jesus does not isolate Himself on the MT. of Olives. There is reasonable implication there. Why is He there?

 

[Revmitchell]

So the Church, all the redeemed of all time, will be taken out whether they want to go or not. Sounds a lot like "irresistible Grace"!

Seriously I think you can do better than this. I have said nothing about irresistible grace. You injected that. It appears just so you could knock it down. You know what that is called right?

 

[Greektim]

Again, Jesus does not isolate Himself on the MT. of Olives. There is reasonable implication there. Why is He there?

In the context? To judge the wicked. Not to gather the elect.

And that still doesn't reckon with the literal idea that we come back w/ Jesus immediately in 1 Thess 4. But if interpreted properly in that way, then that accords nicely w/ what we see pictured in Rev w/ the saints coming w/ Jesus as he wages war on the wicked.

 

[OldRegular]

Seriously I think you can do better than this. I have said nothing about irresistible grace. You injected that. It appears just so you could knock it down. You know what that is called right?

Simply quoting what you said:

No it doesn't it means to plucked or pulled or taken by force.

You say the pre-trib-Rapture is "taken by force"; some insist that what Scripture calls the "Blessed Hope" is the so-called-Rapture based on the following Scripture.

Titus 2:13. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Certainly the removal of all the Saints prior to the so-called-Great Tribulation is an act of the Grace of God. Therefore, I think in light of your definition of the Rapture as "taken by force" it is not at all inappropriate to use the term "irresistible Grace".

You should also know that I reject, and do not use, the term "irresistible grace" as it applied by some to the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. My understanding is that the term was coined in response to one of the Five Remonstrances of The Arminians so I suppose it is okay. I simply think the term opens the truth of the Doctrines of Sovereign Election up to pejorative remarks.

**************************************************************************************************

 

[Darrell C]

I agree... some here who disagree will talk right past you. I at least try to offer something.

As for 1 Thess 4 and the word for "rapture", see this article: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm

If you can refute it, then we can talk.

I am out of time so this will be brief and address what seems to be relevant to the discussion:

The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).

Revelation does not present the recreation of the heavens and earth as occurring before Christ's Return, but rather one thousand years prior to this event. We see Christ return in Revelation 19, a thousand year period, the Great White Throne...then the New Heavens and Earth.

In the Eternal State prophesies dealing with long life spans and restored or renewed good relations between man and animal are pointless, meaning that the very prophesies themselves would go unfulfilled. But that is not the case, as these prophesies fit very well into a Millennial Kingdom context, leaving the Prophecy of Scripture intact and fulfilled just as all Biblical Prophecy has and will be.

Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

There is much else that has to be discussed when we view the referenced passages in a Rapture context. The last passage is a general reference to glorification and not a distinct Rapture passage. When discussing the Rapture we have to remain on point and focused on the Rapture itself, rather than seeking to dismiss it by generalizing.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Two events have to be carefully distinguished in order to understand the Rapture: the Rapture and the Second Coming. All passages that are usually introduced into a Rapture discussion can be, I believe, shown to be distinguished as referring to either one or the other of these two events.

This...


Zechariah 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.


...for example, also speaks of the Lord on a mountain and one can correspond this with Matthew 24, rightly, but, it does not eradicate the Rapture in that this is a Second Coming event which, for obvious reasons, does not depict the Rapture which was a mystery prior to Paul's teaching.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Daniel maintain the obscurity the Old Testament holds in regards to the mysteries revealed in the New Testament, and this has, like certain Second Coming passages in the New Testament, a distinct context dealing with Israel, rather than the events which relate to the Church itself.

The Church is not found in the prophecy describing the events of the Tribulation, and it is clear that in that day there are only two people groups, Israel and Gentiles, rather than the Three people groups of this Age: Jews, Gentiles, and Christians (the Church).

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

This...

Matthew 21:32-34

King James Version (KJV)

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.


...also conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province, but we understand this to be distinctly in relation to Israel, not a general text we can apply as a dogmatic eschatological model. Christ's ministry was specific to Israel, as seen here:


Matthew 10:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Matthew 15:23-24

King James Version (KJV)

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.




Christ's ministry as Savior in a specific Gospel context was not something, though spoken of by Himself, that was understood during His earthly ministry. The closest we get is Peter acknowledging Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (and Peter can be seen to go to efforts for the Gospel not to be fulfilled in taking up a sword, not to mention being immediately rebuked because he himself rebuked the Lord for saying He was going to Jerusalem to die) and John the Baptist (who sent two of his own disciples while he awaited execution to inquire if Christ were the One they had been awaiting, despite declaring "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world").


The point is this: we can jumble together unspecific and out of context passages and create any view we like, but when we address these passages individually and place them in their proper context we understand better the events that will occur eschatologically speaking.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.

Paul's teaching is not to be considered literal truth?

What else in Scripture can we deny as literal truth?

Biblically elusive? We can see that the author errs with a false premise of Christ's Return not occurring until the Eternal State, but for him to equate metaphor as not holding truth is outrageous, lol. Shall we say parables should not be viewed as holding literal truth? All metaphor, hyperbole, symbolism, et cetera...

...always holds literal truth.

Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it?

Well, the author has just suggested it is not literal truth.

How can we say this...


1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

King James Version (KJV)

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


...does not hold literal truth?

What I see as literal truth in this passage:

1. The Lord died and rose again;

2. The Lord will literally bring those who have died with Him when He returns;

3. Those Saints still alive will not precede those who have died;

4. The Lord will literally descend from Heaven with a shout;

5. The dead in Christ are resurrected first;

6. Those that are still alive are then resurrected;

7. Those alive and resurrected are then caught up into the air to meet with those the Lord has brought with Him, namely the saints that had already died who were first resurrected;

8. From that point forward all those that are resurrected will from thenceforth be with the Lord.

And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology?

That is easy enough: that the world system is sinful and separated from God.

How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking?

Subverted?

For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon?

This is a caricature of what Pre-Trib Rapturists believe and think.

Really? I think the world can be polluted because I embrace a Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

Amazing.

Can the author actually present the first Pre-Trib Rapturist doing this?

Does Lehaye or Jenkins present characters who do this?

Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?

Actually, Paul's teaching of the Rapture need not be recaptured, but is a First Century Doctrine which, while obscured at times due to dominant religious groups who popularized a different view/s, in unlikely to have been missed by all Bible Students of Church History. If we take a snapshot of what history, and even a modern understanding of the world system of the Church is and was today, one might think that the media caricature represents the actual Body of Christ and the many individual Bible Students who actually place a priority on fervent study and proper understanding of the Word of God.

That these are not in the spotlight and their views not recorded by history does not mean that they were non-existent or had no impact on that part of the Body of Christ which has always been in the background, such as the lack of coverage of missionary work might parallel.

The lack of understanding of this author, and the direct statement of license to dismiss Biblical truths is evidence that an attempt to deny a Pre-Trib Rapture takes precedence over even presenting an article that maintains even a basic form of competency.

I am surprised this is presented as an effort to disprove the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, as it is so poorly thought out and fraught with evident, basic error that one might think it was offered by...an unbeliever, who is completely lacking in Bible knowledge.

GreekTim, I would ask of you this: do you also embrace the author's view that Christ does not return until the New Heavens and Earth are created?


God bless.

 

[quantumfaith]

Be cautious and judicious with "literalism". It can quickly paint one into a corner. But that said, we are all literalists when it suits us and suits our paradigm. When it doesn't we tend to find "rational" reasons not to be so.

 

[OldRegular]

Paul's teaching is not to be considered literal truth?

What else in Scripture can we deny as literal truth?

Biblically elusive? We can see that the author errs with a false premise of Christ's Return not occurring until the Eternal State, but for him to equate metaphor as not holding truth is outrageous, lol. Shall we say parables should not be viewed as holding literal truth? All metaphor, hyperbole, symbolism, et cetera...

...always holds literal truth.

Do you interpret the following Scripture literally?

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Notice this Scripture says: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth

*********************************

 

[OldRegular]

...for example, also speaks of the Lord on a mountain and one can correspond this with Matthew 24, rightly, but, it does not eradicate the Rapture in that this is a Second Coming event which, for obvious reasons, does not depict the Rapture which was a mystery prior to Paul's teaching.

Then the Rapture is still a mystery because the Apostle Paul did not teach a "snatching away of the Church by force!" The concept of the Rapture is simply made up "out of whole cloth" to support Darby's false assertion that God has two peoples.


***********************************************************************************************