Posted on 12/28/2014 1:23:51 PM PST by wmfights
Denial of imminency of the return of Christ. The teaching that Christ could come for His church at any moment is a doctrine of pretribulationism often singled out for attack by posttribulationists. Obviously, if the church must go through the tribulation, the imminent translation is a vain hope. Posttribulationists therefore labor either to deny imminency or to invest the word with a different meaning which does not require immediacy. Their denial of imminence is a major aspect of their argument against pretribulationism.
Posttribulationists are wont to give considerable space to this argument—more than can be allowed in rebuttal. (Cf. Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth about the Lord’s Return, pp. 21-69.) The following arguments are usually included in the posttribulational statement: (1) the promise of Christ to Peter that he would die in old age (John 21:18-19); (2) various parables which teach a long interval between the time the Lord leaves and the time He returns (Matt 25:14-30); (3) intimations that the program for the present age is extensive (Matt 13:1-50; 28:19-20 ; Luke 19:11-27; Acts 1:5-8); (4) Paul’s long-distance plans for missionary journeys and his knowledge of his approaching death, a tacit denial that he believed in the imminent return of Christ; (5) the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preceding the second advent (Luke 21:20-24); (6) the specific signs of the second advent given to the disciples (Matt 24:1—25:30 ). The problem is further complicated for the pretribulationist in that nineteen hundred years have elapsed, indicating that it was, after all, the purpose of God to have an extensive period before the coming of the Lord. How then can these objections be answered?
At the outset it must be observed that most of the hindrances to the coming of the Lord at any moment in the first century no longer exist. A long period has elapsed; Peter and Paul have gone home to the Lord; only the specific signs of Matthew 24—25 remain to be fulfilled. Most of the difficulties to an imminent return have been resolved.
However, the question is whether the first-century Christians believed and taught the imminent return of Christ in the sense that it could occur at any moment. Most of the difficulties raised by posttribulationists dissolve upon examination. Peter was middle-aged at the time the prophecy of John 21:18-19 was given. By the time the teaching of the imminent translation of the church was fully preached and received in the church he was already well past middle life. The prophecy as recorded in John 21 apparently was not common property of the church until long after he died anyway and constituted no obstacle to belief in the imminency of the Lord’s coming for the great majority of Christians. Even if known, the dangers of martyrdom as illustrated in the early sudden death of James and the difficulties of communication would leave most of the church with no knowledge on a given day whether Peter was alive or not.
The long period pictured by the parables could certainly be fitted into the doctrine of imminency. A long period for a journey might occupy only a few years, as far as the first-century Christians could determine. The extensive preaching of the gospel in the first century might likewise seem to satisfy the program of preaching to the ends of the earth. The coming of the Lord was in no wise contingent upon the gospel actually reaching every person. Under the pretribulational interpretation, time is allowed for events to be fulfilled after the translation of the church. While the destruction of Jerusalem took place in A.D. 70, as far as first-century Christians could see it might have been delayed until after the rapture. In any case, the specific signs of the second advent could follow the translation. That Paul should receive specific revelation immediately before his death that he would die rather than be translated may have removed the imminency of the Lord’s return for him in his last days but no more.
As has been shown in previous discussion of the doctrine of imminency in connection with pretribulational arguments, the positive fact remains that Scripture abounds with exhortation to be looking for the return of the Lord. These positive commands, which are meaningful largely as related to imminency, are evidence far outweighing the difficulties raised against the doctrine. The return of the Lord if imminent justifies such descriptive words as blessed, comfort, purifying, and the like. If the posttribulationists are right, the hope of the Lord’s return is reduced to the hope of resurrection, as few of the saints who would enter the tribulation would escape martyrdom.
Argument that the resurrection of the saints occurs after the tribulation. Alexander Reese in his major work attacking pretribulationism uses as his principal argument the resurrection of the saints as an event which follows the tribulation. (Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, pp. 34-94.) Reese points out that Darby believed that the resurrection of the Old Testament saints took place at the same time as the translation and resurrection of the church. Therefore, if it can be proved that the Old Testament saints are raised after the tribulation it would also prove that the church is translated at the same time. Reese states: “Now concerning the Rapture there are only three undisputed texts in the Bible that deal with it, namely: 1 Thess iv.17 , 2 Thess ii.1 , and John xiv.3 ; but there are many passages in both the O. and N. Testaments that speak of the resurrection of the holy dead, which, Darbyists assure us, takes place in immediate connexion with the Rapture” (ibid., p. 34). Reese then proceeds to pile up proofs that the resurrection of the Old Testament saints occurs after the tribulation period.
While many pretribulationists have attempted to refute Reese on this point, there is a growing tendency to review the question of whether the Old Testament saints are, after all, raised at the same time as the church. Most of the old Testament passages of which Daniel 12:1-2 is an example do indeed seem to set up a chronology of tribulation first, then resurrection of the Old Testament saints. On the other hand, the passages dealing with the resurrection of the church in the New Testament seem to include only the church. The expression “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Thess 4:16) seems to include only the church. The Old Testament saints are never described by the phrase “in Christ.” The fact that the “voice of the archangel”—Israells defender—is heard at the rapture is not conclusive proof that Israel is raised at that time. The tendency of followers of Darby to spiritualize the resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 as merely the restoration of Israel, thereby refuting its posttribulationism, is to forsake literal interpretation to gain a point, a rather costly concession for premillenarians who build upon literal interpretation of prophecy. The best answer to Reese is to concede his point that the resurrection of Old Testament saints is after the tribulation, but to divorce it completely from the translation and resurrection of the church. Reese’s carefully built argument then proves only that Darby was hasty in claiming the resurrection of the Old Testament saints at the time of the translation of the church. If the translation of the church is a different event entirely, Reese proves nothing by his argument.
The point at issue is the question when the translation and resurrection of the church will take place. There is not a single Scripture in either the Old or New Testament which relates the translation of the church to a posttribulational coming of Christ. While Old Testament saints may be resurrected at Christ’s posttribulational coming, no mention is made of a translation of living saints. The reason that posttribulationists attempt to throw the burden of proof for a pretribulational rapture on their opponents is that they themselves have no proof to the contrary. The fact that Old Testament saints and tribulational saints are resurrected after the tribulation according to explicit Scriptures (Dan 12:1-2; Rev 20:4) raises the question why neither the translation nor the resurrection of the church is mentioned in this event. While silence is not explicit, it is nevertheless eloquent in this case. If posttribulationists had one positive Scripture on the time of the translation, it would save them much complicated argument.
Argument that the principal words for the return of Christ refer to a posttribulational coming. Both pretribulationists and posttribulationists have been guilty of confusing the real issue by injecting technical meaning for certain words referring to the return of Christ. The principal words cited are parousia, usually translated “coming”; apokalupsis, translated “revelation,” and epiphaneia, translated “appearing.”
Posttribulationists have rightly argued that all three of these terms are used in connection with the return of Christ after the tribulation. The error lies in the attempt to make these words technical expressions referring to the second advent. A simple concordance study will demonstrate that these are general rather than specific terms and that all three of them are used of the coming of Christ at the translation and also of His coming at the second advent. Their common use no more proves that the two events are one and the same than the use of any other ordinary word (cf. John F. Walvoord, “New Testament Words for the Lord’s Coming,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 101:283-89, July-September, 1944).
The “coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus,” Paul’s friends (1 Cor 16:17), “the coming of Titus” (2 Cor 7:6-7), the “coming” of Paul himself (Phil 1:26, A.V., R.S.V.), the “coming” of the lawless one (2 Thess 2:9), and “the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet 3:12) are certainly not one and the same “coming.” The use of parousia in these passages proves it is not a technical word. The same word is used of the coming of the Lord at the translation (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 4:15 ; 5:23 ; 2 Thess 2:1; James 5:7-8; 1 1 John 2:28). Some pretribulationists have erred in claiming the word parousia as a technical word referring to the rapture. That this is not correct is shown by its usage in passages referring to the coming of Christ after the tribulation (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 2:8; 2 Pet 1:16).
The other words, apokalupsis and epiphaneia, translated “revelation” and “appearing,” are likewise used of both events. Apokalupsis is used of the revelation of Christ to the church at the rapture in a number of passages (1 Cor 1:7; Col 3:4; 1 Pet 1:7, 13). The church will “see him even as he is” (1 John 3:2). The world will see the glorified Christ when He returns after the tribulation (Luke 17:30; 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Pet 4:13).
Epiphaneia refers to the appearing of Christ. It is used of the incarnation of the Son of God (Luke 1:79; 2 Tim 1:10). As related to the translation of the church, it is used in 1 Timothy 6:14 and 2 Timothy 4:8. As relating to the coming of Christ after the tribulation, reference is found in 2 Timothy 4:1 and Titus 2:13.
The posttribulational argument on these words proves only that the three words are used of both events. It does not prove that both comings are one and the same, and it is therefore worthless as a refutation of pretribulationism. While posttribulationists often ridicule the teaching that there should be more than one “coming” of Christ, there is no more reason why there should not be more than one future coming than there is against their own doctrine of a past coming and a future coming. To the Old Testament saint the division into one coming for suffering and another for glory and judgment was equally difficult to comprehend.
Argument from the parable of the wheat and the tares. Posttribulationists use the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13 both because of its general and its specific teaching. The parable, describing as it does the course of the present interadvent age, implies by its description of the growth of the wheat and the tares that a considerable time period must elapse. McPherson uses this phase of the parable to refute the doctrine of imminency: “Here again we find the implication of a very considerable passage of time” (Norman S. McPherson, Triumph Through Tribulation, p. 48).
Reese devotes an entire chapter to the subject, dealing mostly with details of the parable. He dwells on the statement that the tares are gathered out “first,” just the opposite of what occurs at the rapture as the pretribulationists regard it: “But if anything was lacking to refute Darbyists’ explanation of the parable, it is found in their treatment of the burning of the tares. The wording of the parable, ‘Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn’ (v. 30 ), and the words of the Lord’s interpretation (vv. 41-3 ), that the professors are gathered for judgment at the same crisis as the transfiguration of the righteous, naturally caused great embarrassment to men who separated them by several years” (Reese, op. cit., p. 98).
It is undoubtedly true that pretribulationists are partly to blame for the confusion on this point in their identification of the harvest as the rapture. The terminus ad quem in Matthew 13 is not the rapture at all, in the opinion of the writer. The period in view is the entire interadvent age—the period in, which the kingdom in mystery form would be on the earth, the entire time between the first and second advent of Christ. The church age as such is included, but the period in view in Matthew 13 begins with the first advent and extends to the second and is a longer period, having different termini than the church age. The point is that the translation and resurrection of the church is not the subject of this passage at all. If this suggested interpretation be adopted, it surplants the rather inadequate explanation of pretribulationists who try to harmonize the end of the age in Matthew 13 with the end of the church age.
However, Reese completely overlooks that his argument on the tares being gathered first is also a refutation of posttribulationism. According to the posttribulational position as set forth by Rose and many others, the translation for them also precedes rather than follows the judgment on the wicked. In Matthew 13 itself, under the parable of the good and bad fish, the “good” fish are gathered in “vessels” first and then the bad fish thrown away (Matt 13:48). Any argument on the order of events based on this passage creates as many problems for the posttribulationist as for the pretribulationist. The best answer is that the passage is dealing with the fact of separation, not the order of it; the division has to do with saints living at the end of the age, not saints who lived and died during the age, nor the church raptured before the age closes. The kingdom in mystery form existing during the entire period between the two advents of Christ does not end with the rapture of the body of Christ. Professing Christendom, a large aspect of the kingdom of heaven, goes right on without interruption. Saints who believe in the tribulation period are included in the kingdom. The precise terminology of the passage should be respected. The parable of the wheat and tares along with other similar parables has no definite bearing on the question of whether the church will go through the tribulation.
Argument from the Day of the Lord. There are few prophetic subjects about which there is more confusion than the theme of the Day of the Lord. The older pretribulationists such as Darby and the Brethren writers in general identified the Day of the Lord with the millennium and placed its beginning at the return of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom, an interpretation later popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible (Scofield Reference Bible, note, p. 1272). Under this viewpoint, the Day of the Lord begins after the tribulation. Brethren writers were therefore hard pressed to explain how the Day of the Lord could be an event which came like “a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2), i.e., unexpectedly and unannounced, as it would be preceded by such events as the great tribulation and other notable signs. Further, it jeopardized their teaching that the translation of the church was uniquely an event unheralded and imminent. Such passages as 1 Thessalonians 5, discussing the Day of the Lord, seemed to be connected with the translation of the church in the preceding verses (1 Thess 4:13-18). Post-tribulationists were not slow to take advantage of this area of confusion to drive home their own arguments. Reese, for instance, devotes a whole chapter to the subject in which he capitalizes on this apparent weakness (Reese, op. cit., pp. 167-83).
The argument of Reese,while quite detailed, is summed up in this: that all references to “the Day” in Scripture refer to the Day of the Lord (ibid., p. 167). Proceeding upon this sweeping generalization, he demonstrates that the translation of the church, the judgment of the saints, and the coming of the Day of the Lord occur at the same time—on “the Day.” In doing this he argues that the following Scriptural expressions are one and the same: “the day” (1 Thess 5:4; 1 Cor 3:13; Rom 13:11-12); “in that day” (2 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:18 ); “Messiah’s day” or “day of Christ” (Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16 ); “the day of our Lord Jesus Messiah” (1 Cor 1:7-8; 2 Cor 1:14); “the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:4-5; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:1-3).
To the unwary reader, his argument seems quite cogent. To those who analyze his argument, it will be apparent that he is guilty of begging the question. The only way that these various expressions occurring in different contexts could be made identical would be to assume first that the posttribulationists are right—the very point he is attempting to prove. The contexts of the various passages give no justification whatever for malting the word day a technical word meaning in every instance the day of the second advent. Far more reasonable is the approach which takes every instance according to its context, recognizing that the word day is a general word made specific only by the context in which it occurs. The “day” in view, accordingly, is the day pictured by each passage—in some instances an event occurring in a specific period compared to a twenty-four hour day, as in the day of judgment of Christians (1 Cor 3:13; 2 Tim 4:8). In other instances it is the Day of the Lord, a period including the entire millennial reign of Christ.
The problem left unsolved by the early pretribulationists in their discussion of the Day of the Lord has, however, a very simple solution which at one stroke lays to rest the wordy arguments of posttribulationists on this phase of the subject. The Day of the Lord as presented in the Old and New Testament includes rather than follows the tremendous events of the tribulation period. There seems some evidence that the Day of the Lord begins at once at the time of the translation of the church (cf. 1 Thess 5:1-9). The same event which translates the church begins the Day of the Lord. The events of the Day of the Lord begin thereafter to unfold: first the preparatory period, the first half of Daniel’s last seven years of Israel’s program preceding the second advent—the revelation of the man of sin, the formation of the revived Roman empire, finally reaching the stage of worldwide government, possibly as the last half of the period begins. Then there is the outpouring of judgments from on high, the seals of Revelation are broken, the trumpets of judgment sound, and the bowls of the wrath of God are poured out. The climactic event is the second coming of Christ to establish His kingdom, and the millennial age continuing the Day of the Lord is brought into being. In a word, the Day of the Lord begins before the tribulation time. When the day of grace ends with the translation of the church, the Day of the Lord begins at once. This interpretation gives a cogent explanation of the multiplied Scriptures which relate the Day of the Lord to the tribulation period and at the same time solves all the problems raised by the posttribulationist view of the Day of the Lord.
Argument from the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2. Pretribulationists frequently use the chronology of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 as evidence for the pretribulational translation of the church (cf. previous discussion under Pretribulationism of the “Argument from the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in this age,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, 1955, pp. 6-10). In refutation, some posttribulationists teach that the passage denies an imminent return of Christ by its declaration that two signs must be fulfilled first, namely, the rise of apostasy and the appearance of the man of sin. McPherson asks, “…why should Paul be so greatly concerned that no man deceive the Church concerning an event that allegedly has nothing to do with the Church?” (McPherson, op. cit., p. 56). The answer to this question is not difficult to find. The Thessalonians evidently had received the erroneous suggestion that they were already in the Day of the Lord and that their present persecutions were those anticipated for this period. Paul’s answer is, in effect, that they are not in this period because it could not even begin before the two events mentioned were fulfilled. While no doubt apostasy had already begun, the man of sin had not been revealed. The cogency of Paul’s argument should be immediately apparent. He was demonstrating that the predicted Day of the Lord was still future. The passage is no comfort at all to posttribulationists, however, even though they deny the pretribulational interpretation of it. Some posttribulationists concede that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit (cf. John J. Scruby, The Great Tribulation: The Church’s Supreme Test, p. 194). If so, the inference is obvious that the church must be translated first before the Day of the Lord and time of fearful persecution begin. Whatever bearing the passage has on the argument, its evidence is for pretribulationism. Even if the restrainer is not the Holy Spirit, the passage has no support for posttribulationism.
Argument from the doctrine of the end. Reese in his argument for the posttribulational position cites the doctrine of the end as evidence (Reese, op. cit., pp. 120-24). His argument is that the term the end is always used in Scripture for the end of the age, viz., the second coming of Christ to the earth. He claims to have agreement of the early Brethren writers on this score. As the term is used of the church, his claim is that this proves that the hope of the church is not translation before the tribulation but deliverance at its end. Reese cites five texts in support of his argument (1 Cor 1:7-8; Heb 3:6, 14; 6:11 ; Rev 2:26). After claiming the Brethren concede his position and agree with him, Reese then chides them for saying nothing at all on most of these passages—which it would seem would contradict his claim of their agreement. paralambano in Luke xvii.34-5 , by seize. The use of this word in the N.T. is absolutely opposed to this; it is a good word; a word used exclusively in the sense of ‘take away with’ or ‘receive,’ or ‘take home’“ (ibid., p. 214-15). Reese goes on to illustrate the usage in John 14:3, where it is used of the rapture. Once again, however, Reese is guilty of a hasty generalization which a simple concordance study would have eliminated. The truth is that paralambano means only “to take with” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 484). The word does not in itself indicate whether the action is good or bad. The generalization that it is always used in a good sense is shattered, however, by the use of the word in John 19:6 where it refers to Jesus being taken to the cross by the soldiers. Reese’s objection to the pretribulational interpretation of this passage falls with his unsustained generalization. Matthew 24:40-41 simply states that one is taken away. The fact that those taken away are judged and those who remain enter the kingdom is taught explicitly in the context (Matt 25:31-46). The pretribulational interpretation is therefore more in keeping with the usual premillennial interpretation of events at the beginning of the millennium.
Summary. It is not necessary to recapitulate the dozen common posttribulation arguments considered and their refutation. Suffice it to say that pretribulationists have an adequate answer for each posttribulation contention. Most important is the fact that posttribulationists have not a single Scripture passage where the church as the body of Christ is found in the events of the tribulation time preceding the second coming. The precise teaching of the translation of the church is never found in passages dealing with the return of Christ to establish His kingdom on earth. It has been shown that the arguments for posttribulationism depend upon identification of the church with tribulation saints—which they assume but never are able to demonstrate. Frequently their whole argument is based on confusing the great tribulation still future with the common trials of the saints throughout the age. An examination of the posttribulational arguments most commonly advanced has revealed no need of retreating one step from the blessed hope of the imminent return of Christ for His own.
----------------
We are in agreement! The "election" here is believing Jews, and thus they are members of the Church! This is evidenced by the preceding verse 5 of the same chapter:
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Compare this to Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
>>This does not read that the marriage supper has occured or that it occurs before the trimphant return, rather, that it is ready to occur. This could easily be after the conquering of God’s enemies.<<
I was not asserting. It is clear within the logical flow of Revelation the bride is given in verse 8 fine linen to wear. In verse 14 the same is clothed in fine linen coming with Christ. Hard to get around the same passage same object with proper descriptor.
>>The Church is never called the Bride per se, but Paul does allude to it in Ephesians 5:24-27, and 2 Cor 11:2. Contrarily, Jesus said we are the “friends” of the bridegroom (Mark 2:19).<<
Well thanks for dashing your own point:) You state the Church is not the bride yet you also point out Paul used such a descriptor.
>>Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.<<
Yes “as a bride adorned..”
I hope you don’t view the references to eating the flesh and drinking the blood in John 6 as literal. Same here. John describes the New Jerusalem AS a bride adorned.
And in Revelation 19 it is quite clear the bride is not a city. Makes absolutely no sense it is a city invited to a marriage supper.
So the issue remains. If one takes what is plainly explained by John in Revelation 19, we see the bride of Christ supping with Him before gearing and mounting up for the Second Coming.
For amils/partial preterists this becomes an issue but they simply pull the allegory card. Plus they deny Revelation 20 is actually laying out an order of events. It’s why they insist there is only one simultaneous resurrection; no literal earthly millennium and believe the earth is completely melted down and immediately the new Jerusalem is ushered in.
For the post tribulation millennial view (historic view), which I believe is your point of view the “caught up” or translation of the church occurs at the end of the Great Tribulation but before the physical second coming of Christ. This would be the same view of events Ireneaus described in Against Heresies Book V. So Biblically speaking, from a literal approach I can see how many in the Body of Christ agree with this view. It does not require a lot of explaining. However most amils pound this view as well as pre-trib because given the rapture or “caught up” NT passages, they strongly present a shedding of the mortal for immortal. Which means Resurrection, glorification of the body. “Changed in a blink of the eye.” So amils conclude both views are claiming there are actually three resurrections. One at translation of the church, one after the second coming for those who opposed the beast and the other remaining dead who would be raised after the millennium. Every debate/exchange a post-trib has with an amil this is what is focused on. I digress but needed for context.
For the pre-trib view my observations are they start with a theological approach. That would be “the wrath to come” and nature of judgment contained in the seals, trumpets and vials (bowls). Some believe this begins with the revealing of antichrist or his pact with Israel; some see it at the last seal given the clear indication of wrath. Some are last trump or Mid tribulation adherents. And most of this stems from a distinction between Israel and Church.
Out of all the eschatological views, the pre-trib view takes in a large volume of OT scriptures which harmonize with the NT. Whereas the other two views heavily look at NT prophecy using the NT only. This IMO ignores the Jewish audience Jesus Christ and His apostles addressed.
So I don’t act like an “ugly Gentile” our Messianic Jewish brethren have views I think many of us have dismissed or overlooked. I pinged a gentleman, roamer_1, who may be able to tell us how wrong we all are:)
I hope we can all keep this thread civil and explore these most important topics in Holy Scriptures.
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
The marriage IS come...John's watching it take place...Not later...
The Church is never called the Bride per se, but Paul does allude to it in Ephesians 5:24-27, and 2 Cor 11:2. Contrarily, Jesus said we are the "friends" of the bridegroom (Mark 2:19).
Zec 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
It is Jesus' friends who killed him...
Joh_3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
The bridegroom has the bride (the church)...The FRIEND is the friend of the groom, not the bride...
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
I avoid saying I am a friend of God...I am a child of God and the bride of Jesus...I don't see the 'friends' as being the church...With that in mind, the gospels and parables take on a new meaning...
But I digress. If Rev 20 and 21 are in chronological order, then Isaiah 65:20-25 is NOT the Millennium, for Isaiah 65:17 reads “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
None of the bible is 'necessarily' in cronological order...You'll notice that reference in Isaiah actually happens at the end of the millennium in the New Jerusalem...
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
That's why Catholics don't get any of it...They think you read it like a dime store western and the parts they can't figure out, they just throw away...
And this brings up another interesting point. Jesus said that "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.Matt 22:30.
However, does this exclude procreation, especially after the Millenium is over? Isaiah 9:7 KJV states "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end..." Does that mean his government and dominion will grow eternally, adding citizens and territory? Fun questions for speculation!
Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
You will notice that the resurrection (Rapture) changes our physical bodies...We receive glorified bodies as Jesus did...
This shows (me) that while angels can appear to be anything they need to appear as, angels are sexless...The scriptures then indicate that we as well in our new bodies will be sexless..
So, to answer to question, it's easy (for me) to conclude that after the Rapture Christians will have spiritual bodies...We will not marry...We will not reproduce...We will walk thru walls as Jesus did/does...We will reign with Christ...All this during the Millennial reign with Jesus...
So you know what this means??? We know from the O.T. prophecies there will be people who have not been resurrected...They will have survived the Tribulation...They will walk right on thru to the Millennium...
They will have physical bodies...They will live to be old...They will never die of sickness or injury (only to old age)...They will never be hungry...They will be judged at the end of the Tribulation (by Christians and Jesus)...Lions will lay down with lambs and kids will play with poisonous snakes...They will reproduce and have children...
There are Christians with spiritual bodies along side with people as we now know them with physical bodies...And, they will worship Jesus in the city of Jerusalem, in Israel...
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
We already know what the rest of the bible says...We know Isaiah is speaking here of the Millennial reign of Jesus...First part is easy...
Of the increase of his gov't here will be no end, upon the throne of David (which happens only during the Millennium), upon his kingdom (again the physical reign in Israel), to establish it...
We know at the end of the Millennium the heavens and earth disappear...BUT beyond that, the Lord's judgment and justice will last forever...That's how I see it...
Now the clincher...This biblical scenario can only take place if there is a pre-Tribulation Rapture...
Precisely so. The wedding feast is held in heaven while the bowls/vials are being poured out. This is the wrath that we are promised to avoid.
Well thanks for dashing your own point:) You state the Church is not the bride yet you also point out Paul used such a descriptor.
Yet, there is something there - There is the Bride, there are the 'Friends of the Groom', there are the 'Maidens' who kept oil in their lamps... All attend - All will be dressed for the wedding in white raiment... There is probably a pretty decent study in this...
So the issue remains. If one takes what is plainly explained by John in Revelation 19, we see the bride of Christ supping with Him before gearing and mounting up for the Second Coming.
So I don’t act like an “ugly Gentile” our Messianic Jewish brethren have views I think many of us have dismissed or overlooked. I pinged a gentleman, roamer_1, who may be able to tell us how wrong we all are:)
Gentleman? You must be thinking of my dad :P
I don't know that I have a whole lot to add - Yours is a straightforward literal view. But there are a few notes to keep in mind:
Firstly, there are many things yet to happen which require the Church to be present here. I am not of the mind that the Rapture could happen any day now. There is far too much left to do... There is also a fair chance of martyrdom, like there always has been in the past when the beast rises up.
Secondly (though probably most importantly), any eschatology which assumes 'DEM JOOOOS' get to undergo the wrath of YHWH is operating under an extreme deficit: It is the 'Time of Jacob's Trouble', and Jacob WILL be saved out of it. The rapture will necessarily occur after 'ALL Israel' can be saved.
Thirdly, there is a distinction between the 'Tribulation' and the 'Wrath of YHWH'. There is a cause/effect going on in the early signs - A sign occurs, and as a result, bad stuff happens - terrible blights, wars, and etc... These are not Wrath directly from the Throne - Like in the days of Noah, things were very terribly corrupted long before YHWH finally put his hand to the deal. When He did, utter calamity. Before that though, many awful things were happening to men and to the creation that were not YHWH's doing - just natural cause and effect.
I think the point of distinction is predictably the seventh trump - All that (parenthetically) occurs prior to that point is evil rising to be exposed. Just before the sounding of the seventh trump we read:
Rev 10:5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
(e-Sword:KJV)
The seventh trump sounds and it's 'Game Over'. All that's left now is the cleanup. So inevitably, the rapture has occurred, or occurs (my view, and with Biblical support) at this coming precise moment: Directly AS the seventh trumpet sounds, we read:
Rev 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Prior to this moment (precisely Rev 11:18) was not the wrath - from now on IS the wrath.
And finally, one of my pet peeves about these discussions, if one is limited only to Daniel and Revelation, one cannot understand ANYTHING. The Prophecy is all one continuous thing. Try reading all of it as one studies - I guarantee a much wider view.
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.
1. These verses do not specifically say who the bride is or who is called to the marriage supper.
2. These verses do not indicate where the supper occurs, or when
3. These verses do not necessarily require the immediate eating before the return of the King of Kings
A. To determine that the Church is the Bride has some merit, as mentioned above, but John's writings, a mere 2 chapters later, directly contradicts that view:
Rev 21:9 "...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
B. Jesus returns not with his Church, but rather with his Angel Army, to GET his Church!
Rev 21:14 "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean."
It is interesting to note that in Rev 15:6 "...seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles." .
It is also interesting to note that in Matthew 24:30 is seen the "...Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet..."
Furthermore, 2 Thess 1:7 reads "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels"
and Matt 25:31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him..."
Finally, Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Can you provide similar scripture that proves the "armies which were in Heaven" include the resurrected saved, other than the timeline of the assumed pre-trib rapture?
Finally, being "...called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb..." of verse 9 is followed by the "...supper of the great God..." of Rev 19:17, the same chapter! Coincidence?
This passage makes clear that the recompence to those who trouble us, our rest, Jesus being glorified in us, and our admiring of him, all happen on THE SAME DAY! Our rest comes "...when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.", on THAT DAY!
This is the same day we are resurrected, referred to in John 6:44 "44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
How could it not be any more obvious?
See post 86, above.
Thanks, great laydown. A most interesting point you make with Revelation 11:18.
And then what happens after Jesus gets his church???
If one does not know who the Bride is by the time one reaches the end of the Tanakh, then knowing who the Bride is by Revelation is impossible - Hence your following comment (A.)...
2. These verses do not indicate where the supper occurs, or when
Not true. The when is explicit - The time IS come... It does not draw nigh... it has not soon passed. The time is in the NOW.
As to the where: If the Roman church had not messed with the original images, you would know where with certainty... It is a Hebrew wedding, not a Roman one - And the ancient Hebrew wedding tells it perfectly:
Once the marriage contract is signed, and the dowry given to the bride,
The groom goes away for a long while to prepare a place for her, attached to his father's house.
After many days (a year, maybe two), The father tells the groom when the place is made well enough for his bride, and he is given permission to go get her.
The groom comes at an unexpected time and is suddenly announced by a trumpet call, and much clamor by his groomsmen,
announcing his coming and going ahead of him with lamps held high on long poles.
The bride and her bridesmaids are by now awaiting his coming, ready for the event...
The bride is 'snatched away' from her fathers house by the groom, and carried off to his father's house, where they will enter the bedchamber and stay there for a whole week.
The bridesmaids light their lamps, and join the groomsmen, announcing the groom's coming through the town, and leading the way to the feast.
The wedding feast takes place at the father's house, at the father's expense, for the entirety of the nuptial week, under lock and key, guarded, and only invited guests are allowed... All must attend wearing white linens.
OF COURSE the 'where' is in the Father's House, where Yeshua went to prepare a place for us.
A. To determine that the Church is the Bride has some merit, as mentioned above, but John's writings, a mere 2 chapters later, directly contradicts that view:
Metaphor. Jerusalem is about people, not buildings. The metaphor is used often elsewhere.
B. Jesus returns not with his Church, but rather with his Angel Army, to GET his Church!
Doesn't make sense. We are not made for the wrath, and will escape it, as promised... And Jacob will be saved out of it. According to your timeline, the wrath of YHWH is poured out while we are still here.
He is coming to Earth to take it back. It is His possession. And once he has taken it back (with all His saints in tow), then comes the Kingdom, which begins with a thousand year reign, and of which there is no end.
As to your proofs: There are two types of survivor: those raptured and attending the feast in heaven, and those who make it through the trib, and the wrath - Pick accordingly in your proofs.
Can you provide similar scripture that proves the "armies which were in Heaven" include the resurrected saved, other than the timeline of the assumed pre-trib rapture?
Well, sure... Jude comes to mind. I'll go see if I can find sommore...
"...supper of the great God..." of Rev 19:17, the same chapter! Coincidence?
Uh, no. That is calling the birds to the carnage of the battlefield.
No, it says IN that day.
The same thing that happens in the pre-trib timeline at the second coming when his church is with him. Jesus descends to the Mount, Satan is bound, and "...they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Rev 20:4
Bravo for avoiding any details...I detailed to you what really happens and you can't seem to refute it, you just deny it...
Agreed, thanks for the correction.
Trump
σάλπιγξ
salpigx
.....
I believe the KJV has the correct translation since the Greek word more represents the sound a trumpet makes than the actual trumpet...And that definitely fits the narrative...
Your statement in Bold is the best admission yet. The ONLY reason to assert the last trump of 1 Cor 15:52 is not the Seventh Trumpet of Rev 10:15 is because it does not fit the pre-trib narrative!
BTW, Stong's 4536 "salpigx" is used not only in 1 Cor 15:52, but also in Matt 24:31, 1 Th 4:16, Rev 1:10, 4:1, 8:2 8:6 8:13, 9:14!
And in 1 Cor 15:52, "...at the last trump: for the trumpet*shall*sound (Strong's 4537 - salpizo), this is the same word used in Rev 10:15 "And the seventh angel sounded.
No need to flippancy or flattery, point me to your timeline in this thread, I did not see it.
- I have done my best to refute the pre-trib and thus it's alleged timeline by referencing several places where the scripture refers to the resurrection being "in the last day" or "at the last day" (post 86).
- I also pointed out that in the 3 references to timing of the gathering/rapture that have any indication of timing, the timing is ALWAYS after the tribulation, not before (post 10).
- I also clearly demonstrated that the "Elect" in the NT is the church in 12 clear instances, and never specifically Israel (post 71-72).
- Finally, If you want I can point you to numerous Church Father quotes that state they believed the Church would be persecuted by the Anti-Christ, just as John taught in Rev 13:7-10.
- Furthermore, I can also provide proof that the pre-trib "doctrine" is of recent 1830's origin.
- It is also fun to point out that the pre-trib rapture is seen nowhere in the Bible, and especially in Revelation or Matthew 24.
As I have seen multiple times, however, all of these clear scriptures are explained away, and deference is given to analogy (Jewish wedding sequence), typology (come up hither) and wishful thinking. I am quite certain I have added nothing or taken nothing away from the Book of Revelation, and thus won't fall under the curse of Rev 22:18-19. Are you?
Well Jesus Christ was teaching these things to Jews. So we have to understand these things according to the audience hearing.
Oh, far more than that, FRiend - The very covenant that you and I and our FRiend rely upon is an Hebrew Wedding Ketubah. How can it possibly be dismissed out-of-hand?
Perry Stone - The Ancient Jewish Wedding It is in the right order...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.