Timing of the Rapture

[asterisktom]

\

talk about contrived. Of course the lens in which you view things reaches the hight of that which is contrived. The preterist view is the weakest among them all. (much like the gap theory)

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)

Several things wrong with this response. First of all, Zech. 14:2-4 has nothing about Christ "meeting Christians". Look at verse 1. Or do you imagine that those are Christian's goods that are being "plundered"? No, you are reading into this what you want to see.

Also, you are selectively choosing what you want to be literal and what you allow to be metaphorical or figurative. Jesus' feet are literal? OK, then how about the chariots coming from between the mountains earlier in Zech? Are the horses there real? Or for that matter, is the horse that Christ comes in on in Revelation a real horse?

You really need to understand that metaphorical, apocalyptic language always has to be taken into account. Otherwise you have absurdities and conflicting scenarios.

more later.

 

[kyredneck]

The Hebrew number 1000 means a thousand, unless it is used to refer to a herd of animals or cammand of men under one leader.

A 1000 yrars is 1000 years. 1000 days are a 1000 days.

...and the literalism of the letter kills...

 

[taisto]

More than 10,000 hllls still has a 1000 hills. ". . . fell in one day three and twenty thousand. . . .". Twenty four thousand still died. 1 Corinthians 10:8, Numbers 25:9.

1000 hills...1000 years. Same principle. Taking 1000 as literal does not make common sense.

 

[canadyjd]

The tribulation was ongoing when John penned the book:

9 I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Rev 1

It's done already, ancient history:

21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Mt 24

19 For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be.
30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Mk 13

22For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gahered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Mt 23

John uses “tribulation” in a general sense for the persecution Christians experience.

It is clearly distinguished from “The Great Tribulation” Jesus spoke of in the verses you quoted. He says such tribulation as has never been seen before and shall not be seen again.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

z
The Hebrew number 1000 means a thousand, unless it is used to refer to a herd of animals or cammand of men under one leader.

A 1000 yrars is 1000 years. 1000 days are a 1000 days.

You collapsed events. The 1000 years are clearly on earth. Revelation 20:7-9,

The context determines the meaning. The Hebrew number system consisted of their letters in the alphabet, not the numbers we use today.

The word for “1000” was often used symbolically in the Hebrew language.

I believe its use in Revelation 20 is symbolic, but that really doesn’t make a difference. The focus of the “reigning” was on the martyrs reigning with Christ, not on Jesus reigning in the earth.

Jesus reigns in heaven. The reward for their faithfulness unto death is reigning with Christ as He reigns in heaven. That is what Revelation 20 says.

peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

John uses “tribulation” in a general sense for the persecution Christians experience.

So you say.

It is clearly distinguished from “The Great Tribulation” Jesus spoke of in the verses you quoted. He says such tribulation as has never been seen before and shall not be seen again.

In the Jew's 'world', to who that was addressed, it was indeed "tribulation as has never been seen before and shall not be seen again".

 

[37818]

* There is only one the last trumpet, 1 Corinthians 15:52.

* There is only one second appearing, Acts of the Apostles 1:11, Revelation 1:7, Hebrews 9:28.

* There is only one first resurrection, Revelation 20:6, John 6:40.

* The rapture will only take place after the resurrection, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.

 

[John of Japan]

First, I want to address something you said to another poster. I am a Bible believing Christian and I believe scripture teaches a-mil. I don’t know what Catholics believe, or others particularly, I just know what I believe scripture teaches.

I believe scripture in the context it was written. If it is supposed to be taken literally, I take it literally. If not, then I don’t take it literally.

The point of Revelation 20, concerning the 1000 year reign with Christ is symbolic. It is saying those who have stood firm in the faith during the tribulation (beheaded) will be rewarded. Christ reigns in heaven.

The number 1000 is often used symbolically among the Hebrew people (Samson slew 1000 with jawbone of an ass: Saul slew 1000’s but David slew 10,000’s) The number 1000 is simply a very large number difficult to count, 10,000 is a indefinite number too large to count; according to my Hebrew prof.

Much of Revelation is symbolic, obviously. According to my Greek prof; John does not write in chronological order. He writes in repeated themes. Here is a brief summary as I see it.

The setting for the scene in heaven is the great throne judgment. During a Roman trial, there were two types of scrolls that had 7 seals; Death penalty cases and Wills. Only certain people were authorized to break the seals.

Each seal had a brief summary that describes the contents of the seal. Everything that is revealed when the seals are broken has already occurred… it is The Great Throne Judgment. God is judging what is contained in the scrolls…. A record of the history of God’s dealings with mankind, of Satan and of the Redemption brought by our Lord Jesus.

The final verdict is delivered. Christ reigns in heaven, His people have joy and peace. All others are thrown into eternal punishment with Satan and his demons.

That’s how I see it. I know many will disagree.

peace to you

Thanks for sharing. We will agree to disagree.

You will never convince me that the 1000 in Rev. 20 is symbolic. It is not presented as symbolic in the text, but as real. And the early church (first three centuries) until Augustine, who followed Origen in allegorizing interpretation, were all convinced that it was literal. Augustine was the first amillennialist in church history. He followed a three-fold method of interpretation, with the literal being lowest, the figurative being the next highest, and the "spiritual" (allegorizing) being the highest and best.

 

[37818]

A Kindle book, The Post-Trib Pre-Wrath Rapture . . . .


https://www.amazon.com/Post-Trib-Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Abridged-ebook/dp/B00JOYUYFY

Read the reviews.

 

[John of Japan]

I provided you with the meaning. Perhaps you missed that post.

No, you did not provide me with the meaning the word has in dispensationalism. You provided me with "a meaning," not the right one. Meaning must be determined by context. Any interpreter must know that.

If you had simply looked further down the page on the link you gave for your mistaken definition of dispensation, you would have seen the correct definition used in the theology.

Second, what I receive from this is your disdain for anyone who disagrees with your specific view of dispensationalism. You so narrow the subject that you even have disdain for those who call themselves Progressive Dispensationalist's, essentially calling them heretics.

This is false witness and a sin. I did not call Progressive Dispensationalists "heretics," nor do I think of them that way. The Bible is very strong against false witness, and God even made that part of the Decalogue. You need to repent of your false accusation.

Mostly, I see a person who has bathed himself in dispensationalism for his career and now cannot comprehend any other, legitimate, way of interpreting eschatology.

You are welcome to see what you want. I can't stop your misapprehensions.

Meanwhile, here we are, people like myself, @canadyjd, and others who have learned dispensationalism and found it to be very poor eschatology that butchers Revelation like a 5 year old cutting up a turkey for Thanksgiving. The turkey is still edible, but it's been hacked and sliced in ways that it was never meant to be cut.

You are not even knowledgeable enough to discuss Dispensationalism correctly. You got the most basic of definitions wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself. Here you are: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13).

If that's your preference, no one will stop you. But, for a number of us here, dispensationalism (futurism)misses the mark while amillenialism provides a beautiful and very practical understanding to the whole of the Bible.

Dispensationalism incorporates futurism, yes, but it is not simply futurism. You compound your ignorance.

Best wishes to you John.

You obviously don't mean this. Your own disdain for me is palpable.

 

[John of Japan]

To follow up on my previous post about the meaning of a dispensation, I'll continue with why dispensational premillennialism is pretribulational.

In Dispensationalism, every dispensation (stewardship given to Mankind) has a command to all humans, Mankind's failure, and then judgment from God for that failure. Mankind's task in the Church Age (my preferred term, though Ryrie and others call it the Age of Grace) is to "Believe on Christ" and "Walk with Christ" (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 62). The judgment for Mankind's failure in the Church age is the seven year Tribulation.

The Church will be taken out of the world by the Rapture in order for the judgment of God to descend on the world for seven years. It is the Bride of Christ; what sane groom would put his new bride through a time of terrible trouble? The pre-wrath view and the mid-trib view still have the Church enduring part of the Tribulation, and the post-trib view has the Church, the Bride of Christ, suffering through seven years of agony.

 

[37818]

1000 hills...1000 years. Same principle. Taking 1000 as literal does not make common sense.

Nothing in the context of Revelation 20 requires it not to be understood literally.

 

[John of Japan]

If you had simply looked further down the page on the link you gave for your mistaken definition of dispensation, you would have seen the correct definition used in the theology.

For those interested in exactly what a dispensation is in the theology, rather than taisto's misapprehensions, here is his link: What is Dispensation? Bible Definition and Scripture References. Look down the page to the definition given from the original 1915 ISBE Bible encyclopedia, and you'll see the definition used in Dispensationalism. Apparently taisto carelessly took the very first definition without honestly trying to understand what is a very important part of Dispensationalism. His desire is apparently to criticize, not understand.

 

[John of Japan]

Nothing in the context of Revelation 20 requires it not to be understood literally.

I agree. And here is a parallel. Some would say that the 7 mountains of Revelation 17:9 are symbolic. However, any first century dweller of the Roman Empire would immediately recognize this as literal reference to the famous Seven Hills of Rome: Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, and Viminal. So the numbers of Revelation are usually literal.

 

[canadyjd]

Thanks for sharing. We will agree to disagree.

You will never convince me that the 1000 in Rev. 20 is symbolic. It is not presented as symbolic in the text, but as real. And the early church (first three centuries) until Augustine, who followed Origen in allegorizing interpretation, were all convinced that it was literal. Augustine was the first amillennialist in church history. He followed a three-fold method of interpretation, with the literal being lowest, the figurative being the next highest, and the "spiritual" (allegorizing) being the highest and best.

I have no problem with the 1000 years of Revelation 20 being literal. Whether literal or symbolic doesn’t change the focus of the passage which is the reward (reigning with Christ) that is given to those that are killed during the great tribulation. They reign with Christ. Christ reigns in heaven.

Again, we know from Matthew 24 and 25, the 2nd coming of Christ occurs after the great tribulation, Jesus comes in the clouds, the saints are gathered from the four corners of the earth (rapture) and then the great throne judgment.

I see no way to reconcile a 1000 year earthly reign of Jesus, a pre-trib rapture with this very clear teaching of our Lord Jesus.

If you directly addressed these passages, I must have missed it.

peace to you

 

[timtofly]

"Therefore, according to this view Revelation 20:1 is not to be thought of as following in chronological order chapter 19 (which describes the Second Coming of Christ). Rather, it takes us back once again to the beginning of the NT era and recapitulates the entire present age. By doing this the AM is able to interpret (a) the binding of Satan in Rev. 20:1-3 as having occurred during our Lord’s earthly ministry, and (b) the 1,000 year reign (i.e., the millennium) of Rev. 20:4-6 as describing in symbolic language the entire inter-advent age in which we now live. Therefore, the thousand-year period is no literal piece of history; it is a symbolic number coextensive with the history of the church on earth between the resurrection of Christ and his return."

You have a man made interpretation of Revelation based on a bias that you seem to not want to admit. Amill is more contrived than this claim below.

I have highlighted my disagreement.
Chafer, and all dispensationalists use a man-made economy created by their own bias, not by God, to determine dispensations.

Saying the book of Revelation is just repeating parallel views of history is more contrived than Scriptural dispensations. Besides it was Paul in his writings (the majority of the NT) that explains the difference between the dispensation of the Law and the NT gospel of grace. You are literally blaming Paul for defining dispensations. Can you describe the bias Paul was exemplifying?

Now, can you show chapter and verse this human bias that John uses recapitulation in the way he writes what is unfolding before his very eyes?

Even Preterist claim Revelation 21 is a recap of this time since the Cross. Do you get to pick and choose what is literal? Is the NHNE literal? Is the New Jerusalem a literal city? Are you inconsistent and say 21 is chronologically after 20, while at the same time claiming 20 is not chronologically after 19?

Any one who claims Revelation is not in chronological order, has already inserted their personal opinion and bias into any interpretation they may offer about the text.

Also if you claim being beheaded is not an equal symbolic point of physical death, why do you make an ambiguous distinction between martyrs who are judged, and "non martyrs" who are sitting in judgment? You seem to think they both reign, but how are there "distinctions" of redeemed people in your scenario, yet you denigrate dispensations, which also describes the redeemed as living out life differently in "contrived" economies?

I don't agree with dispensationalists, but I certainly would not jump out of the frying pan into the fire as a way of changing my perspective. I would leave the "stove of human theology" and get back onto the solid footing of God's Word. And Amill fits somewhere between God's Word and full preterism, and is further down that slippery slope than dispensational teachings.

BTW if being beheaded was symbolic, it would certainly not be symbolic of martyrdom. Neither is this verse:

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:"

The Lamb was slain on the alter. Is the Lamb slain symbolic of Martyrdom? Was Jesus just a martyr, or is this symbolism way more than simple martyrdom? People should really think about something before giving their interpretation. The book of Revelation is not about martyrs at all. It is about the final harvest, after the Second Coming. It certainly is not about the "recap of the first coming".

The first coming was for salvation not destruction of Adam's condition. The Second Coming is for the removal of Adam's condition. All redeemed souls from Abel to those raptured at the Second Coming are considered slain under the alter, or covered by the blood, by the fact they all are in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[John of Japan]

I have no problem with the 1000 years of Revelation 20 being literal. Whether literal or symbolic doesn’t change the focus of the passage which is the reward (reigning with Christ) that is given to those that are killed during the great tribulation. They reign with Christ. Christ reigns in heaven.

Again, we know from Matthew 24 and 25, the 2nd coming of Christ occurs after the great tribulation, Jesus comes in the clouds, the saints are gathered from the four corners of the earth (rapture) and then the great throne judgment.

I see no way to reconcile a 1000 year earthly reign of Jesus, a pre-trib rapture with this very clear teaching of our Lord Jesus.

If you directly addressed these passages, I must have missed it.

peace to you

Thanks for sharing.

I haven't addressed these subjects much in the thread because I feel to go too far in that direction would sidetrack the thread, which has an OP about Progressive Dispensationalism.

 

[timtofly]

I have no problem with the 1000 years of Revelation 20 being literal. Whether literal or symbolic doesn’t change the focus of the passage which is the reward (reigning with Christ) that is given to those that are killed during the great tribulation. They reign with Christ. Christ reigns in heaven.

Again, we know from Matthew 24 and 25, the 2nd coming of Christ occurs after the great tribulation, Jesus comes in the clouds, the saints are gathered from the four corners of the earth (rapture) and then the great throne judgment.

I see no way to reconcile a 1000 year earthly reign of Jesus, a pre-trib rapture with this very clear teaching of our Lord Jesus.

If you directly addressed these passages, I must have missed it.

peace to you

Why would God being born in human flesh make sense, but actually ruling on earth not make sense?

The whole purpose of coming in physical flesh was to be the "Prince to come" to also reign in the flesh.

If one cannot except this future reign on earth, why accept that Jesus was ever on the earth?

They in the first century could have made it all up. Who could prove otherwise?

It seems straightforward that if the first coming was physical to the earth, the Second Coming would also be physical, and this time Israel would have their "Prince to come" for a thousand years.

 

[taisto]

Why would God being born in human flesh make sense, but actually ruling on earth not make sense?

The whole purpose of coming in physical flesh was to be the "Prince to come" to also reign in the flesh.

If one cannot except this future reign on earth, why accept that Jesus was ever on the earth?

They in the first century could have made it all up. Who could prove otherwise?

It seems straightforward that if the first coming was physical to the earth, the Second Coming would also be physical, and this time Israel would have their "Prince to come" for a thousand years.

The second coming is in the flesh. We see it on grand display in Revelation 21 as we see the Bride of Christ come down to live eternally with our King.

The thing that seems to trip you up is your insistence on a literal 1000 year reign, followed by a second demonic action, after Jesus makes life perfect on earth. You won't acknowledge that Satan's binding is now happening so the church can continue to grow and expand. There will soon come a time where the church will be attacked on a worldwide scale. When you see that happen, know that Satan is again unbound and knows that the return of our King is near.

 

[taisto]

You have a man made interpretation of Revelation based on a bias that you seem to not want to admit. Amill is more contrived than this claim below.



Saying the book of Revelation is just repeating parallel views of history is more contrived than Scriptural dispensations. Besides it was Paul in his writings (the majority of the NT) that explains the difference between the dispensation of the Law and the NT gospel of grace. You are literally blaming Paul for defining dispensations. Can you describe the bias Paul was exemplifying?

Now, can you show chapter and verse this human bias that John uses recapitulation in the way he writes what is unfolding before his very eyes?

Even Preterist claim Revelation 21 is a recap of this time since the Cross. Do you get to pick and choose what is literal? Is the NHNE literal? Is the New Jerusalem a literal city? Are you inconsistent and say 21 is chronologically after 20, while at the same time claiming 20 is not chronologically after 19?

Any one who claims Revelation is not in chronological order, has already inserted their personal opinion and bias into any interpretation they may offer about the text.

Also if you claim being beheaded is not an equal symbolic point of physical death, why do you make an ambiguous distinction between martyrs who are judged, and "non martyrs" who are sitting in judgment? You seem to think they both reign, but how are there "distinctions" of redeemed people in your scenario, yet you denigrate dispensations, which also describes the redeemed as living out life differently in "contrived" economies?

I don't agree with dispensationalists, but I certainly would not jump out of the frying pan into the fire as a way of changing my perspective. I would leave the "stove of human theology" and get back onto the solid footing of God's Word. And Amill fits somewhere between God's Word and full preterism, and is further down that slippery slope than dispensational teachings.

BTW if being beheaded was symbolic, it would certainly not be symbolic of martyrdom. Neither is this verse:

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:"

The Lamb was slain on the alter. Is the Lamb slain symbolic of Martyrdom? Was Jesus just a martyr, or is this symbolism way more than simple martyrdom? People should really think about something before giving their interpretation. The book of Revelation is not about martyrs at all. It is about the final harvest, after the Second Coming. It certainly is not about the "recap of the first coming".

The first coming was for salvation not destruction of Adam's condition. The Second Coming is for the removal of Adam's condition. All redeemed souls from Abel to those raptured at the Second Coming are considered slain under the alter, or covered by the blood, by the fact they all are in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You can see John showing us the tapestry of events and continually circling back to reveal more details in the tapestry.
John is not explaining a straight timeline in sequential order. That kind of interpretation is not in alignment with apocalyptic writing and it misses John's point. As Voddie Baucham and Sinclair Ferguson would say, a child better understands Revelation because he sees it as a picture book, while futurists miss the picture entirely and thus twist and strain to understand something that is right in front of their nose.