The Rapture and My Baptist Family

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For it is a righteous thing with God,
to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you,
7 And to you which are troubled,
rest with vs, when the Lord Iesus shall
shewe himselfe from heauen with his mightie Angels,
8 In flaming fire, rendring vengeance vnto them,
that doe not know God, and which
obey not vnto the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ,
9 Which shall be punished with euerlasting perdition,
from the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of his power,

The Tribulation Period (Daniel's 70th Week)
is about saving Jews (& Israeli) and punishing
bad people - the Tribulation Period is NOT
about wrathing Church Age, mostly gentile
(but a few Million Messanic Jews) born again
elect saints. This is NOT that the undead
saints DESERVE to be spared but that
GODs plan to save Jews & Israeli includes
the rapture2 event for GOD's Purposes.
The Doctrine of the Soverignty of God says
God can do what ever He wants, however He
wants, whenever He wants, using whomever
He Wants for whatever purposes He has
conceived.


Scripture by request (Bolding by Ed):

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):

(This tells Paul will talk about the Saint Assembly
later in the passage. Where? the 'departing first'
in verse 3.)

(This is the second mention of the gathering/assymbly)

(that is the antichrist)

(When antichrist shows this, midterm /perchance at
the dedication of the complete temple in
Jerusalem?/ -- the Jewish/Israeli will see that
Jesus is Messiah & be saved.)

 

First, there is never any mention in the Bible of something called a "tribulation period". The idea of a tribulation period comes from the assumption that the 70th week of Daniel is a future event (probably a good assumption), and that this period of 7 years will be a period of tribulation (not a good assumption, since the Bible never explicitly says that). In fact, the Bible sometimes implies the opposite, that the first part of the 70th week will a period of peace, not tribulation. So that leaves us with the "great tribulation" as the only prophetic period of tribulation that has a solid foundation in scripture.

But the Bible never says that, by virtue of being Christians, we will be spared ANY tribulation, great tribulation or otherwise. The closest it comes to saying anything like that is Revelation 3:10, "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." But this reference is conditional, not a guarantee to all living Christians, and it doesn't even necessarily refer to the great tribulation. I don't know for certain what the hour of trial refers to, do you? You can guess that it refers to the great tribulation, but that's only a guess. Maybe it does, maybe not.

Regardless, my point is addressed to those pre-tribbers (not necessarily you) who insist that it is almost blasphemous to suggest that God would allow the church to endure the (great or otherwise) tribulation, because God would not allow His elect to suffer like that. To them, I say, God would have to apologize to Paul, etc. Could anything in the so-called tribulation period be that much worse than being stoned and left for dead, crucified upside down, burned alive, torn to pieces, etc?

However, we ARE told that we are not appointed to wrath. And I don't think it's an accident that we see this verse in Revelation -- 17 For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”, after which a great multitude appear in heaven, who have come out of the great tribulation. The rapture spares God's elect from the wrath of God, not from any period of tribulation.

 

//First, there is never any mention in the Bible
of something called a "tribulation period". //

those words are not found in the Bible TOGETHER.
But I've just shown that some of the names
are TIME PERIODs.

Here are the names/descriptions of the Tribulation
Period found in the O.T.
I've bolded this posting the TIME references.

The tribulation in Deut 4:30
the day of Israel's calamity in Deut 32:35, Obadiah 1:12-14
the indignation in Isaiah 26:20, Daniel 11:36
the overflowing scourge in Isaiah 28:15,18
The Lord's strange work in Isaiah 28:21
The year of recompense in Isaiah 34:8
The day of vengeance in Isaiah 34:8, 35:4, 61:2
The time of Jacob's Trouble in Jeremiah 30:7
The day of darkness in Joel 2:2, Amos 5:18, 20; Zephaniah 1:15
See also Zephaniah 1:15-16.


Yep 60% mention TIME PERIODs.
There is reason to speak of TRIBULATION PERIOD.
(the names 'Bob & 'Roger are already taken.)

Zep 1:14-15 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
The great day of the Lord is neere: it is neere,
and hasteth greatly, euen the voyce
of the day of the Lord: the strong man shall cry there bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath,
a day of trouble and heauinesse,
a day of destruction and desolation,
a day of obscuritie and darkenesse,
a day of cloudes and blackenesse,


Note the 'great day of the Lord' is a day (time period)
of wrath (God's wrath will NOT ever be suffered by God's
kids which we are). I personally don't see how you can
get closer to 'Tribulation Period' than
//day of wrath, a day of trouble and heauinesse//.

 

Isn't this contradictory? You say there isn't any mention of a "tribulation period" and then proceed to give some of the biblical support for it. I must confess I don't understand why you did that. Is your contention that the Bible doesn't call it "the tribulation period" or that the Bible doesn't talk about a period of time that has come to be called "The Tribulation." The 70th week of Daniel is described in Daniel and Revelation as two periods of 3 1/2 years, so that is a pretty good indication of this seven year period called the Tribulation.

Of course not. I am not aware of any pretrib who would make this argument. It does teach that we will be spared from the Tribulation, since its purpose is to bring Israel to repentance.

I think it pretty clear from the whole of Scripture that it refers to the Tribulation. And it is a guarantee to the church, which is all living Christians at the time of the Rapture.

I am not aware of any such pretribbers. That certainly isn't a pretrib argument.

The wrath of God that we are not appointed to, in context of 1 Thess, is the Tribulation. So to say that "The rapture spares God's elect from the wrath of God, not from any period of tribulation" is a contradictory statement in terms of how Scripture uses the terms.

 

I didn't give support of a tribulation period, I was talking about a future 7 year period. Why do you presume that it will be a "tribulation" period? Where does the Bible say there will be a period of 7 years of tribulation?

I don't get the connection. Why does the church have to be spared tribulation in order for Israel to be brought to repentance?

It's not clear to me.

I wish I could recall the name of the book, but there is a book devoted to this whole premise. Its whole premise it that God would not allow the church to suffer tribulation, which is why pre-trib must be true.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I do not see any evidence that the wrath is tribulation. If anything, 1 Thes supports what I said about the Bible implying that the 7 year period will contain at least some portion (probably the first 3 1/2 years) of peace.

Here's the rest of the passage, and I see no connection between wrath and tribulation.

However, I do see very clearly that there will be a period of great tribulation, and immediately after that great tribulation, there will be the signs of the coming of the Son of Man, and the rapture.

The parallel passage in Revelation show that this is what starts the outpouring of wrath...

Then, immediately after the 144,000 are sealed, it says the great multitude appears in heaven -- those elect the angels gathered in Matthew 24, above. They are raptured, spared the wrath of God.

And when does this all happen? Like it says, above...

 

The passages you cited are the passages that support the seven year Tribulation. Perhaps you didn't intend that, but that is what those passages are saying, in the view of pretribbers.

It doesn't have to, but 1) God says it will, and 2) the purpose of the Tribulation serves no purpose for the church.

Again, this is pretty much a pretrib argument. Many pretribbers believe that the first half of the Tribulation will be relatively peaceful, on teh basis of Dan 9:27. In any event, it is totally incompatible with a posttrib rapture since no one at the end of the Tribulation will be saying "Peace, peace" before the wrath comes, as they are in 1 thess 5.

You cite the passage here. You have clearly a time of peace and safety followed by inescapable tribulation, which v. 11 calls "wrath" that we are not destined for. What do you think that is?

Where are the judgments of Revelation in your view? Where in 1 Thess 5 do they fit in?

This is the kind of argument that confuses me. You say you see no connection between wrath and tribulation, but then you see "very clearly" a period of great tribulation. That doesn't make sense. What is the "wrath" is not the great tribulation?

And notice how you add "rapture" into what you see, using a passage that talks about the return of Christ in glory, not the rapture. I think you are confusing that passage.

However, I do see very clearly that there will be a period of great tribulation, and immediately after that great tribulation, there will be the signs of the coming of the Son of Man, and the rapture.

I don't have time to address this fully, but I think you are making some major jumps, connecting things that are not similar or connected in Scripture. But "the great day of his wrath" is not after he comes in power and glory, I don't think. So I think there are some huge gaps in your presentation.

 

That's what I said. That's pre-wrath/post-trib.

I was just repeating what scripture says. The only thing I'm interpreting is why the great multitude suddenly appears in heaven, which coincides with Matthew 24 where the angels gather the elect. I think this is the rapture. The rest of it speaks for itself.

 

I don't think pre-wrath is posttrib. It is actually a form of midtribulationism, I believe. But even at that, I think you have still contradicted yourself by saying you don't see tribulation but you do see tribulation.

You are interpreting it to apply to a certain time. And Matthew 24 says that will happen after the abomination of desolation, which you previously said (I think) is the 70th week of Daniel which is the Tribulation.

 

Now I'm more confused than ever. I don't recall saying I see tribulation but I don't see tribulation. I am assuming that there is a future 70th week, but I don't see where the Bible says it will be 7 years of tribulation. All I see is that the great tribulation starts in the middle of the week.

I also don't see how pre-wrath is mid-trib. Pre-wrath assumes that when Jesus returns, this is what brings the great tribulation to an end, after which God pours out His wrath upon the world. That places the rapture immediately after the great tribulation and immediately before the outpouring of wrath. The only difference between pre-wrath and post-trib is that post-tribbers tend to place the end of the tribulation at the end of the 70th week. Pre-wrath assumes the great tribulation is cut short, and so there's no way to know exactly when the great tribulation ends and the rapture occurs. It has to occur sometime within the 3 1/2 year time frame, but nobody knows where in that time frame.

I see Matthew 24 combined with Revelation 6/7 to show the chronology as:

1. [abomination of desolation/man of sin revealed] ->
2. [great tribulation - duration unknown but less then 3.5 years] ->
3. [signs of the Son of Man returning/Day of the Lord] ->
4. [sealing of the 144,000]/[rapture] ->
6. [wrath]

IMO, the great tribulation being cut short is the key. If you neglect to notice that the great tribulation is cut short, you'll be inclined to dismiss pre-wrath/post-trib because they let you predict the day/hour of His return. That only leaves mid-trib and pre-trib as reasonable alternatives. But when you take into account the fact that the great tribulation is cut short, the prediction factor is no longer an issue.

 

You say it even when by saying "the great tribulation starts in the middle of the week." So it seems you do see tribulation. But then you say "I do not see any evidence that the wrath is tribulation." You either see it or you don't. You can't have it both ways, IMO.

You say you don't see that the 70th week is seven years of Tribulation. Yet the seventieth week must be seven years just like the other 69 weeks, and it is described as the period that has become known as the Tribulation.

It's not "mid trib." It is a form of midtrib because it not pretrib, and not posttrib, at least to my understanding. Jesus returns before the end of the Tribulation, prior to the pouring out of wrath.

Think about it, friend. If he cuts short the "great Tribulation," then it isn't 3 1/2 years.

I think this is a wrong understanding.

So feel free to differ. It doesn't really bother me, but I think your position has some pretty serious unanswered questions.

 

Sorry, I still don't get it. I don't think it is established that the first 3.5 years are years of tribulation. Therefore the 7 years is not necessarily a "tribulation period". It's a minor issue, but it's just one of those things that bugs me. People call it the 7 year tribulation period without first establishing that the entire 7 years will be a time of tribulation.

Personally, I think it has become KNOWN as the tribulation period BECAUSE of the pre-trib rapture theory. If one assumes that the first 3.5 years aren't years of tribulation, then it's hard to justify why we're yanked out of it. So one reasons that it's a 7 year tribulation period based on the a-priori notion that there's a pre-trib rapture. That's not good exegesis.

Minor technicality - Jesus' return ends the great tribulation. He doesn't return during the great tribulation.

Right! The great tribulation isn't 3 1/2 years. It is some portion of the 3 1/2 years, the second half of the week. That doesn't mean there isn't a full 70th week, it just means the great tribulation doesn't map exactly to the second 3.5 years of the week. Why should it?

I'm comfortable with this position precisely because it resolved all the objections I had about all the other positions, and because it so obviously matches the chronology of Daniel/Matthew/Revelation. But it doesn't bother me that we disagree, either. We'll find out sooner or later which it is.

 

I already know ...

 

Along with the 1st Thessalonians passage in the 1st post, I believe the book of Revelation also supports a pre tribulation rapture of Gods people.

Those in the graves 1st, then those alive will be "caught up". (and it could be before I hit the "send" button for this post!)

After that...all hell breaks loose down here.

God bless,

Mike

 

Npetrely...

I've never met any christian who thinks God will not allow His people to exerience any tribulation, as your post seems to imply when you said...

All of us go through tribulation from time to time in this life. Its part of life as a born again christian in this world.

But it is the *specific" period of "Tribulation" that comes after the rapture that we are guarenteed to have no part of.

God bless,

Mike

 

I am currently looking at the amil and postmil positions. I have disregarded any dispensational teachings about the "end-times".

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book that took this position. The book specifically objects to post-trib/pre-wrath because the author(s) found it outrageous that anyone would teach that God would allow His church to experience the horrors of the great tribulation. Someone gave me the book after I taught a class on pre-wrath rapture. She was, like the author, outraged by what I was teaching. The book was garbage. It tried to make its point by assassinating the character of authors who taught pre-wrath/post-trib.

 

Npet and Pastor Larry,

Right now, I'm sitting at you guys feet on this one. Healthy stuff!

 

In looking for a non-dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, I found this article written by Sam Storms on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9. The Q & A format lends itself as an easy-read.
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/daniels-70-weeks

Here's an excerpt for anyone interested:

 

Partial Preterist view of the Rapture

Hello Pastor Paul, and may I say it is a very great pleasure to meet and fellowship with a shepherd of Christ’s flock.

>I'd love to know just where all of you on this board stand on the Rapture and when it will happen.

I began my Christian walk 27 years ago and was from the day of my baptism taught the premillennial view of eschatology. In the years since, through much study of Scripture as well as New Testament history and archaeology, along with very fervent prayer and tremendous soul-searching, I have come to a very different view, a partial preterist view.

However, all my family (a mix of Baptist and Pentecostal) remain steadfastly premillennial. I don’t know if you recall the little book by a Mr. Whisenant back in early 1988 that laid out the Scriptural reasons why the rapture would occur in September 1988 (at the time of the feast of Trumpets). It was entitled “88 REASONS why the Rapture will be in 1988.” I still have that little book, one of only 3 books on eschatology that I own (all 3 premillennial), and I remember those days very well. That little book quickly became a best seller and the buzz in every church and congregation. I remember that churches were filled to overflowing on the Sunday before that date. Many members of my family were convinced of the truth of that little book and began witnessing earnestly to save as many souls as possible. However, I cautioned, pleaded, argued, and testified to my loved ones that the whole interpretation was wrong and the rapture was not going to come to pass as the “prophet” Whisenant was claiming. At one point, my sister left my home in tears, having failed once again to convince me that the rapture was about to occur on that September 88 date and that if I didn’t believe and was not ready I would be “left behind.” I love my sister, and I know it grieved her heart to think that I might have to endure the tribulation, and I know that her concern was sincere and born out of conviction and the best of intentions, but knowing that sincerity and good intentions are not the measure of truth, I steadfastly (with much trepidation and trembling) testified to my loved ones that the rapture would not occur on that day.

My family still thinks I’m wrong about “end times.”

I believe in the rapture that is described in the Thessalonian passage you cited, but I believe that is speaking of the 2nd Advent of Christ, when Jesus returns to this earth, in the flesh, to judge the living and the dead, in the flesh. There will be a great resurrection of all that have ever lived, the redeemed and the lost, they will rise first, and then we who are in Christ and still alive when Jesus returns will be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, our mortal bodies will be redeemed and glorified:

“But ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, two wit, the redemption of our body . . . But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (Romans 8:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, where Paul quotes from the Messianic passage of Psalm 110 which foretold the reign of Christ from that heavenly Zion, that New Jerusalem where he even now sits enthroned and from which he rules and reigns in majesty and power in this earth, “in the midst of his enemies”)

The resurrection/rapture speaks of the end of Christ’s reign at the end of the world, when he returns in the flesh and destroys all his enemies, including death itself, in the lake of fire (“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire . . . and there shall be no more death” Revelation 20:14, 21:4) and rewards the righteous with . . . immortality.

So I have to agree, the rapture/resurrection (Revelation 20:13) does occur after the tribulation (Revelation 6-19) . . . 1000+ years after.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

A Partial Preterist view of the 70th week

Hello Isaiah 40:28,
As a partial preterist might I suggest an alternative understanding of the 70th week of Daniel? My view, which is based solely on my own studies of both the Scripture and New Testament history, is that the 70th week, or final 7 years, were fulfilled in the 7-year Roman/Jewish war which began in 66 A.D. and ended when the last stronghold of resistance was taken by the Romans . . . Masada, in the spring of 73 A.D.
In the "midst of that week" or halfway through the 7-year war, is when the city and the sanctuary were destroyed and the daily sacrifice and oblation (the Tamid of the Old Covenant) forever ceased, on the 17th Tammuz (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter II, Part 1, Line 94). The reason the daily expiatory offerings to God ceased was because there were no priests left to offer it.
Allow me to quote this passage from Josephus in which he pleads with the Zealot leader of the Great Revolt, John of Gischala, who had set up his headquarters in the Temple courts claiming to be the Messiah who would deliver the people from the tyranny of Rome and "restore the kingdom to Israel," as Rabbinic Judaism understood the promises:

“Titus . . . was informed that on that day, the seventeenth day of Panemus (Tammuz), because of a lack of men, the perpetual offering to God had been discontinued, and that the people were consequently in the depths of despair; he then ordered Josephus to repeat to John the same message namely:

‘If you have a malicious inclination to wage war, you are free to come out with as many men as you wish to fight without bringing destruction on the city and sanctuary as well as on yourselves; but you must stop polluting the holy place and sinning against God; moreover, you are free to appoint any Jews you like to offer the discontinued sacrifices.’ Josephus posted himself where he could be heard not only by John but by the multitude and delivered Caesar’s address in Hebrew, appealing to them earnestly ‘to spare the country, to beat out the flames that were already licking at the sanctuary and restore to God the expiatory sacrifices’. The people listened to him in silence and utter dejection, but the tyrant poured abuse and imprecations on the head of Josephus, finally stating that ‘he would never be afraid of capture, since the city was God’s.’ Josephus loudly retorted: ‘Certainly you have kept it pure for God, and the holy place too remains unpolluted! (At this time the courts and streets and buildings of the city were filled with dead bodies as there were not enough men to bury them all and the courts themselves literally ran red with the blood of the slain, so much so that it ran down into the streets of the city and actually extinguished fires). You have never dishonored your hoped-for ally (God), and He still receives the customary sacrifices! You godless creature, if anyone deprived you of your daily food, you would regard him as your enemy; and do you believe you can count on God, whom you have denied His everlasting worship, to be your ally in this war? And you blame your sins on the Romans, who respect our laws and are now pressing you to restore to God these sacrifices, which you have interrupted. Who would not cry and wail for the city at the amazing change, when aliens and enemies atone for your impiety, while you, a Jew, cradled in her laws, are a greater enemy to them than the other? Yet, consider, John, it is no disgrace to mend your evil ways, even at the last moment; and if you really wish to save your country, you have a splendid example before you in Jeconiah, king of the Jews who, when the king of Babylon made war on him through his conduct, left the city of his own accord before it was taken, and submitted with his family to voluntary captivity, rather than surrender the holy place and see the house of God go up in flames. For that he is celebrated in the holy scriptures by all Jews, and memory, flowing down the ages and eternally new, immortalizes him to future generations. This, John, is a noble example, even if it is dangerous! But I guarantee you even a pardon from the Romans. And remember too, that I who exhort you, am a fellow countryman and advise you as a Jew. It is sensible to consider who is counseling you, and where he comes from (Josephus was a priest and a Pharisee). Never, while I live, shall I become such an abject slave as to deny my race or forget my heritage. Once more you shout your indignation at me with your loud-mouthed abuse. Indeed, I deserve even harsher treatment for offering advise against fate’s decision, and struggling to save men condemned by God. And who does not know the writings of the old prophets and the oracle pronounced against this poor city – now about to be fulfilled? For they foretold that it would fall when someone would begin the slaughter of his own countrymen. Is not the city and the whole Temple area filled with your bodies? Behold, it is God, therefore, and no other, who, together with the Romans, is bringing His fire to cleanse the sanctuary and to destroy the city that is filled with such great pollution.”
(Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter II, Paragraph I)

John of Gischala was one of the many “false christs” that rose up in that final generation, but this man was the one who was responsible for leading the “Great Revolt” (the meaning of the word “apostasia”) that brought destruction upon the nation and the city, and by whose bloodstained hands the daily sacrifice was taken away:

“And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” Daniel 8:9-11

This God-forsaken man and his host, or army of Zealots, literally did trample underfoot the dead bodies of their own countrymen and priests which lay strewn across the vast temple courts.

So it was written, so it was done.

In Christ,
Deborah