Premillennialism and the Tribulation — Part VIII: Midtribulationism

Midtribulationism is a comparatively new interpretation of Scripture relating to the translation of the church. Its principal expositor is Norman B. Harrison. Accepting some of the basic premises of pretribulationism, such as the future character of the seventieth week of Daniel (Dan 9:27), midtribulationism places the translation of the church at the middle of this week instead of at its beginning as do the pretribulationists. In contrast to the posttribulationists, it holds that the translation takes place before the time of wrath and great tribulation instead of after it.

Midtribulationism is, therefore, a mediate view between posttribulationism and pretribulationism. As such it has commended itself to some who for one reason or another are dissatisfied with both pretribulationism and posttribulationism. it has also provided a place for certain prophecies to be fulfilled before the translation of the church instead of afterward, and at the same time is able to claim the promises of comfort and blessing which seem to be denied by the posttribulationists who take the church through the entire period.

Midtribulationists usually do not use the term of themselves, and prefer to classify themselves as pretribulationists—pretribulational in the sense that Christ is coming before the “great tribulation” which characterizes the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. Harrison refers to his view as teaching “His pre-Tribulation coming” (Norman B. Harrison, The End, p. 118). The term midtribulation is justified by the common designation of the entire seventieth week of Daniel as a period of tribulation even though pretribulationists can agree that only its latter half is properly “the great tribulation.”

The midtribulational interpretation bristles with important theological, exegetical, and practical problems, and it differs radically from normal pretribulationism. Among the crucial issues are such questions as the following: (1) Does the seventh trumpet of Revelation mark the beginning of the great tribulation? (2) Is the rapture of the church in Revelation 11? (3) Is the seventh trumpet the “last trumpet” for the church? (4) Do the programs for Israel and the church overlap? (5) Is the hope of the imminent return of Christ unscriptural? In general, the midtribulational view requires a different interpretation of most of the important Scriptures relating to the coming of Christ for the church.

One of the crucial issues in the midtribulational theory is the question of whether the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11 begins the great tribulation. In fact, it is not too much to say that the whole teaching of midtribulationists depends upon this identification. The midtribulational view cites many other Scriptures, however. Harrison appeals to the following passages: Exodus 25—40 : Leviticus 23; Psalm 2; Daniel 2, 7 , 9 ; Matthew 13; 24—25 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:13—5:10 ; 2 Thessalonians 2 (ibid., p. 35). It is clear from reading his discussion, however, that these are supporting passages, or problems which have to be solved in the midtribulational view, rather than the crux of the issue.

The midtribulational view requires the interpretation that the first half of the Book of Revelation is not the great tribulation. In general, the theme song of its adherents is that the church will go through the “beginning of sorrows” (Matt 24:8, A.V.), or “beginning of travail” (A.S.V.), but not through the “great tribulation” (Matt 24:21) as Harrison indicates in his “Harmonized Outline” of Matthew 24—25 and Revelation 1—20 (ibid., p. 54). It is their position that the events of the seven seals as well as the judgments of the first six trumpets are related to the first three and one-half years of Daniel’s seventieth week and therefore are not a description of the “great tribulation.”

Harrison states: “‘Wrath’ is a word reserved for the Great Tribulation—see ‘wrath of God’ in 14:10, 19 ; 15:7 ; 16:1 , etc.” (ibid., p. 91). He implies that there is no wrath of God mentioned during the period of the seven seals and the first six trumpets. In his comment on Revelation 11:18, he states: “The Day of Wrath has only now come (11:18 ). This means that nothing that precedes in the Seals and Trumpets can rightfully be regarded as wrath” (ibid., p. 119). He further defines the tribulation as equivalent to divine wrath: “Let us get clearly in mind the nature of the Tribulation, that it is divine ‘wrath’ (11:18 ; 14:8, 10, 19 ; 15:1, 7 ; 16:1, 19 ) and divine ‘judgment’ (14:7 ; 15:4 ; 16:7 ; 17:1 ; 18:10 ; 19:2 )” (ibid., p. 120). In both instances where Harrison gives extended lists of references to “wrath” in Revelation (ibid., pp. 91,120) he, with evident purpose, omits Revelation 6:16-17 and Revelation 7:14. The former passage refers to wrath in connection with the sixth seal, and the latter is the only reference to the “great tribulation” by that title in the entire book. Both of these passages fall in the section of Revelation which deals with the period preceding the trumpets.

The explanation given of the reference to “wrath” in Revelation 6:16-17 is certainly inadequate for such a crucial issue. Harrison interprets the sixth seal “as reaching to the day of Wrath” (ibid., p. 91), as if it were a future instead of aorist as it is in the text. No Greek tense would be more inappropriate to express this idea of Harrison’ s than the aorist, which usually is punctiliar as to kind of action, and present or past as to time. If “the great day of their Wrath is come” (Rev 6:17), it certainly cannot be postponed as to its beginning until after the seventh seal is opened and seven trumpets of various judgments are poured out upon the earth.

Not only does Harrison exclude wrath, but the first three and one-half years are declared a relatively pleasant time. Harrison writes: “The first half of the week, or period of seven years, was a ‘sweet’ anticipation to John, as it is to them; under treaty protection, they [Israel] will be ‘sitting pretty,’ as we say. But the second half—’bitter’ indeed…” (ibid., p. 111). Pretribulationists could accept the teaching that the first three and one-half years of Daniel’s seventieth week is a time of protection for Israel, but they do not find this period described in Revelation 6—11 .

Even a casual reading of the seals and first six trumpets will make clear that the great tribulation begins with the early seals, not with the seventh trumpet. Certainly famine (Rev 6:5-6), death for one-fourth of the world’s population (Rev 6:8), earthquakes, stars falling from heaven, the moon becoming as blood, and every mountain and island being moved out of their places (Rev 6:12-14) portray indeed “the great day of their wrath”—the “wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16-17). This is no period of “‘sweet’ anticipation to John” (loc. cit.), but the unprecedented time of trouble. Add to this the first six trumpets with their bloodshed, destruction on the earth and the sea, and poisoning of the rivers with the result that “many men died” (Rev 8:11), climaxed by the great woes of Revelation 9—10 , and one has a picture of great tribulation such as the world has never experienced. According to Scripture, at that time “their torment” will be “as the torment of a scorpion, when it striketh a man” (Rev 9:5).Some will seek death in vain in order to escape (Rev 9:10). In the sixth seal, one-third of the remaining earth’s population will be killed. If language means anything, this is the predicted time of unprecedented trouble.

Midtribulationists are obliged not only to explain away the explicit reference to wrath in connection with the sixth seal (Rev 6:16-17), but they must also slide over the only specific reference to the “great tribulation” in the entire Book of Revelation (7:14 ). This is made into a prophetic vision of the time to follow the tribulation. In the light of these references to wrath and great tribulation in a context as frightfully graphic as the events of the seals and first six trumpets, it should be obvious that the very foundation of the midtribulational theory is built upon sand. Few theories are more openly contradicted by the very Scriptures from which support is expected.

The efforts to evade these graphic Scriptures force midtribulationists to spiritualize and thereby nullify the force of these judgments. Harrison attempts to find fulfillment of the trumpet judgments in the events of World War II. He states in reference to the second trumpet, “The ‘great mountain burning with fire’ seems a clear reference to Germany, suddenly ‘cast into the sea’ of nations…” (ibid., p. 218). In the same paragraph he then suddenly makes “the sea” a literal sea in which literal ships are sunk: “The further reference to ‘sea’ and ‘ships’ (8:9 ) must betaken literally…” (loc. cit). It should be obvious that this interpretation also calls for a chronology in which the seventh trumpet will sound within a few years thereafter, involving a date-setting for the rapture which subsequent history has proven an error.

The evident fallacy of the whole midtribulational interpretation of Revelation 1—11 is that this view forces a spiritualization of the entire passage to find contemporary rather than future fulfillment. In doing so, a strained exegesis of the passages is achieved which is subjective and arbitrary. Even a simple reading of this section will give an impression of vivid divine judgment upon a sinful world which transcends anything which history has recorded. If the passage is intended to be taken with any serious literalness, its fulfillment is yet future.

The great tribulation actually begins in Revelation 6, not in Revelation 11. The seventh trumpet marks a point near its end, not its beginning. Posttribulationists make the seventh trumpet the end of the tribulation (cf. Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, p. 73). This is accomplished by ignoring the fact that the seven vials of judgment follow the seventh trump. It is curious, however, that both of these opponents of pretribulationism adopt such opposite views of the seventh trump, and, in effect, cancel out each other.

At no point does the midtribulation view manifest its dogmatism more than in the interpretation of Revelation 11. One midtribulationist contends for the view that the great tribulation is the first part of Daniel’s seventieth week, that the rapture occurs in the middle of the week after this tribulation, and that the last half of the week is the beginning of the Day of the Lord. The rapture according to this view takes place at the sixth seal of Revelation 6:12-17 (cf. H. W. H., The Church and the Great Tribulation, 46 pp). This point of view is actually a variation of posttribulationism and is peculiar to the author. The more normal position for midtribulationism is to place the rapture at Revelation 11.

J.Oliver Buswell has expressed the midtribulational position in the following statement: “I do not believe that the Church will go through any part of that period which the Scripture specifically designates as the wrath of God, but I do believe that the abomination of desolation will be a specific signal for a hasty flight followed by a very brief but a very terrible persecution, and that followed very quickly by the rapture of the Church preceding the outpouring of the vials of the wrath of God” (extract from letter published in Our Hope, LVI, June, 1950, 720).

We are indebted to Norman B. Harrison for the most explicit exposition of this teaching. His interpretation of Revelation 11 claims that “all the elements involved in the Coming are here” (op. cit., p. 117). He submits the following tabulation:

This tabulation (ibid., p. 117) is supplemented by the discussion which brings out the midtribulational interpretation. The two witnesses are symbolic of Moses and Elijah, “represent the Law and the Prophets” and more specifically according to their description in Revelation 11 as “two olive trees and two candlesticks” (Rev 11:4) they represent the witness of the saints of the Old and New Covenant (ibid., pp. 114-15). Harrison is not too clear as to his precise definition, and seems to waver between the idea that the two witnesses represent all the saints, especially Jew and Gentile, and the idea that they represent Moses and Elijah, viz., “The Two Classes ‘Dead’—’Alive’“ (ibid., p. 117). By this, apparently, he means that the two witnesses are the living church and the resurrected saints at the time of the rapture. He states, “Now, if the two witnesses are symbolic of a ‘larger company of witnesses,’ then their resurrection and ascension must be symbolic of the resurrection and rapture of that larger company” (ibid., pp. 116-17).

This interpretation is supplemented by further identification of “the cloud” as symbolic of the rapture: “‘The Cloud’ (11:12 ) is a definite reference to the Lord’s presence-parousia” (ibid., p. 117). Because the future tense is omitted in the description of Christ in Revelation 11:17, Harrison concludes, “It seeks to tell us: He has come” (ibid., p. 118). The reference to the “reign” of Christ is declared by Harrison to be future, not present, as the third woe, viz., the vials, must be first poured out (loc. cit). The statement, “thy wrath came” (Rev 11:18, A.S.V.) is interpreted, on the basis of the Authorized translation, “thy wrath is come,” as “has only now come (11:18 ). This means that nothing that precedes in the Seals and Trumpets can rightfully be regarded as wrath” (loc. cit). Harrison overlooks that the verb “came” is in the aorist which emphasizes the fact but not the time of the action. It could just as well refer to the whole course of the wrath of God in the seals and preceding trumpets.

His interpretation of the opening of the temple (Rev 11:19) is that it “is a further reference to the Rapture. ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?’“ (ibid., p. 119). Just how the church can be “opened in heaven” he does not explain. The concluding identification is that the “seventh Trumpet sounds for the pouring of the Bowls of wrath. While it brings glory to the Church, it brings Woe (the third) to the world” (loc. cit). The church goes through two woes which are not to be identified with the great tribulation, but not through the third woe which is so identified.

The fallacy of this entire exegesis of the passage is that there is no positive evidence that any of the identifications are correct. Similarities do not prove identity. The character of the two witnesses seems to indicate that they are actual individuals, not representatives of all the saints living and dead. The saints as a whole do not perform the miracles nor the witness designated of them (Rev 11:5-6). Nor are all the saints, especially the resurrected saints, killed by the beast. If all the saints are killed, then none would be living to be raptured. If the witnesses are only symbols, how can symbols be literally killed and lie in literal streets? Do the saints as a whole have men look on their “dead bodies” for “three days and a half,” refusing them burial in a tomb (Rev 11:9)? The other identifications are just as strained and unsustained by the text. sounded by angels. The trumpet at the rapture is the “trump of God.” The trumpets of Revelation are all connected with divine judgment upon sin and unbelief. The trump of 1 Thessalonians 4 and of 1 Corinthians 15 is a call to the elect, an act of grace, a command to the dead to rise.

The most damaging fact in the whole argument, however, is that the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11 is, after all, not the last trumpet of Scripture. According to Matthew 24:31, the elect will be gathered at the coming of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom “with a great sound of a trumpet.” While posttribulationists hold that this is identical with the seventh trumpet, midtribulationists cannot do so. In fact, it is not too much to say that this one reference alone spells the doom of midtribulationism.

The use of “last” in reference to the trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15 is easily explained without resorting to the extremities of midtribulationism. H. A. Ironside interprets it as a familiar military expression: “When a Roman camp was about to be broken up, whether in the middle of the night or in the day, a trumpet was sounded. The first blast meant, ‘Strike tents and prepare to depart.’ The second meant, ‘Fall into line,’ and when what was called ‘the last trump’ sounded it meant, ‘March away.’“ (Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 529). The last trump of God for the church, following the gospel call and call to preparation, will be the call to go to be with the Lord. Whether or not this explanation be accepted, it illustrates that there is no necessity of relating a trump for the church with trumpets of judgment upon the unsaved. Each trumpet must be related to its own order. Any child in school knows that the last bell for one hour may be followed by a first bell for the next hour. “Last” must be understood then to relate to the time order indicated by the context.

Midtribulationists are therefore unjustified in making the identification of the seventh trumpet with the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians. The seventh trumpet is not the last trump of Scripture anyway, and the events which they claim are related to it actually occur before the seventh trumpet is sounded according to the chronology of Revelation 11. On no point does the identification commend itself.

Another objection to the midtribulational interpretation is that it confuses Israel and the church and requires an overlap of their two programs. Harrison’s argument that the existence of the temple to A.D. 70 proves that Israel’s program and that of the church overlaps is entirely untenable (cf. Harrison, op. cit., pp. 50-53). According to Scripture the dispensation of the law ended at the cross (2 Cor 3:11; Gal 3:25; Col 2:14). Most students of the seventy weeks of Daniel who believe the seventieth week is future also believe that the sixty-ninth week was fulfilled prior to the crucifixion of Christ. Israel’s program is therefore at a standstill and the continued existence of the temple had no relevance. Israel as a people and nation have continued throughout the present age, but their predicted program has made no specffic progress since Pentecost. The necessity for such an overlapping program is not inherent in Scriptural revelation, but only a necessary adjunct of midtribulational interpretation.

One of the important reasons why pretribulationists believe the refutation of midtribulationism is necessary is that it directly attacks the imminency of the Lord’s return for the church much in the same fashion as is true in posttribulationism. Midtribulationism has this added feature, however, which is most objectionable: it sets up a definite chronology requiring date-setting. The events of the first three and one-half years of Daniel’s prophecy are specific. They begin with a covenant between a Gentile ruler and Israel in which Israel is promised protection and Palestine becomes their national home. Such a covenant could not be a secret by its very nature as it would be heralded throughout Jewry and be of great interest to the entire world. Such a covenant would, on the one hand, make the coming of Christ impossible for three and one-half years, according to the midtribulationist, and, on the other hand, make an imminent coming impossible at any time prior to the covenant. If the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians is the Holy Spirit, it also sets up an impossible chronology—the Holy Spirit taken out of the world before the church is.

The date-setting character of midtribulationism is manifest in Harrison’s exposition. He identifies World War I specifically “as that which our Lord Jesus envisioned, distinguishing it from other wars through the years…” (ibid., p. 20). His calculations are detailed: “The evidence that the War Trumpets of Revelation 8 found their realization, initially at least, in World War II is striking and conclusive. Here are a few marks of identification (will the reader please familiarize himself with chapter 8 ): 1—Its Origin (vs. 1 )—the Trumpets proceed from the Seals. World War II definitely grew out of World War I—practically but a second stage. 2—Its Timing (vs. 1 )—’about the space of half an hour.’ Some time notes are merely general; this is specific. The key to divine reckoning is Peter’s ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.’ A half-hour is 1/48th of a day; divided into 1, 000 years it yields 20 years, 10 months. This is the ‘space’ of ‘silence’ between the wars. Reckoned from the armistice of Nov. 11, 1918, it brings us to Sept. 11, 1939. But it says ‘about’; World War II began Sept. 1, 1939; Hitler ‘jumped the gun’ by 10 days” (Harrison, His Coming, pp. 42-43). This far-fetched interpretation is its own refutation.

Harrison further identifies the second trumpet with Germany (The End, p. 218). It should be obvious, under his chronology, if this occurs during the first three and one-half years of Daniel’s last week, that the rapture is now long overdue. This refutation from history does not seem to deter midtribulationists, like another date-setters, from making alterations in their system and making another guess at identifying current events with the seals and trumpets of Revelation.

To most students of prophecy, the midtribulation view falls for want of proof in its three strategic interpretations: its teaching that the great tribulation does not begin until the seventh trumpet, the identification of the seventh trumpet with the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, and its further blunder of demanding identification of the seventh trumpet with the last trump of 1 Corinthians 15:52. Its arguments against imminency on other grounds (cf. Harrison, The End, pp. 231-33) are a repetition of familiar posttribulational arguments often refuted. While the question of the time of the return of the Lord for His church is not in itself a structural principle of theology as a whole, it certainly has a vital bearing on the interpretation of many Scriptures and is integral to the teaching of the imminency of the rapture. The great majority of expositors will continue to divide between the posttribulational and pretribulational positions, with the midtribulational and partial rapture viewpoints held only by a small minority.

You seem to want to make “the day of the Lord” into a single 24 hr day. It’s not. It’s a period of time.

It is actually both ... you are both right ... however, you cannot force the one into the other or you get aberrant positions like the pre-wrath view.

There is a narrow sense use of the term "Day of the Lord" and there is a wide sense use of the term "Day of the Lord."

There are some passages that depict the day of the Lord as a single event occurring on a single day ... we call this the narrow sense use of the term. But there are others that describe it as an extended period of time, the wide sense usage. This is a source of constant confusion ... and it has actually led to the pre-wrath view.

Determining which usage is involved in a particular passage is paramount to good interpretation.

I will post a few scriptures later ...

Showers has a good section in his book "Maranatha, Our Lord Come" that highlights the usage of the term. I found this very helpful.

“You seem to want to make ‘the day of the Lord’ into a single 24 hr day. It’s not. It’s a period of time.”

I regard the Day of the Lord as the latter part of Daniel’s seventieth week. It could be a year, but it is not specifically defined as a length of time. When Christ quoted from Isaiah in the temple, He stopped short of quoting the part about the Day of the Lord:

Isaiah 61:2
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,

Isaiah also makes a more specific reference here:

Isaiah 34:8
For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance,
The year of recompense for the cause of Zion.

I infer from this that it could be a year or happen within a year. But I would not be dogmatic other than to agree that it is not a single day but a period of time.

I believe that the second coming encompasses two time periods: the Day of the Lord and the millennial reign. However, both the second coming and the Day of the Lord arrive suddenly, unexpectedly (for those who are not watching), and in a moment in time. So the arrival will happen in a single day.

I hope this clarifies any comments that I made from which you or anyone might infer I define this time period any differently.

“wonder whether or not you read the entire series of articles”

No, you do not wonder and just speculate that I must not have. But you could actually confirm that I have commented on many, if not all of them, with specific details which indicate that I not only read the articles but also looked up the references and provided many others in defense of my position.

“parts of you[r] post contradict other parts”

All of my posts on this subject were thought out and explained in detail. Your comment (in #21) does not reflect any effort or thought. It is meaningless and pointless to make general, broad statements like this without providing one single solitary example. So, I contradict myself multiple times? Name three. I am not trying to be argumentative, but it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion without specifics.

I can only speculate as to your reason for posting to me since you did not address anything specific. From your other posts, perhaps you are offended at my comments that argue how the pre-trib view is also guilty of the date-setting problem.

If I am wrong about the examples I give to support my argument (in post #8), then I would like to see how I have erred. No one has, at any point that I am aware of, offered a single counter argument.

The pre-trib position has the same exact date-setting problem that the mid-trib and post-trib views have, because Christ describes His second coming AFTER the Great Tribulation as being like a thief and on a day when no one expects. (See Matthew 24, as above.) The pre-trib view regards this as distinct from the rapture, but how can no man know the time of His return if all they need to do is count seven years from the anti-Christ treaty or three-and-a-half years from the abomination of desolation? How is that not a date-setting problem?

Methinks you make the day of the Lord more complicated than it actually is.

Simply put, man has had his “day,” the Lord (Jesus Christ) is going to have his. But man is not going to turn over power and control to Christ without a fight. The Lord, depicted in a number of places in scripture as a “man of war,” is well up to the task. He comes IN PERSON to defeat the enemies of his reign. He comes as Lord, the “Lord” part of “the day of the LORD.”

Once again, the references from Hebrews. He is in heaven now, and will remain so, until he has his enemies - enemies of his coming reign - just where he wants them, i.e., gathered nicely together in a bunch, Rev. 19:19. At that point, and only at that point, does he leave heaven to take care of his enemies...IN PERSON.

Not until then is power shifted from man to the Lord, not until then does he come as the Lord. On HIS day, the day of the Lord.

That’s when he comes “the second time,” Heb. 9:28. The incarnation marked the first time he came, what we see described in Rev. 19 marks “the second time.”

The first time he came as a Lamb, “once offered to bear the sins of many,” he comes “the second time without sin,” in other words, NOT to bear the sins of many as he did the first time, this time he comes as a lion. (See Heb. 9:28, Rev. 5:5)

When Christ comes again, he comes as Lord or King, the kingdoms of this world become his at that point, Rev. 11:15, he remains in heaven until THEN.

The rapture is our great hope to be sure, but it is but incidental to the greater purpose mentioned above, the emphasis in scripture is always his coming Lordship. That great day is HIS day, the day of the Lord.

“you get aberrant positions like the pre-wrath view”

It is funny to me to see it described as aberrant. It is the only view I have ever seen supported through exegetical, expository study. Daniel’s seventieth week has been explained so. Pre-millenialism has been explained so. But beyond this, I have only seen paradigms on the timing of the rapture superimposed onto Bible passages and using them as proof texts, the way cults argue false doctrines.

So I really would appreciate any exegetical study of the Day of the Lord that identifies any errors I may have in this regard. But what I have read from the pre-wrath camp, and my own personal studies have all come out conclusively in support of the pre-wrath view.

I spent many years believing the pre-trib view because that is what I was taught. But when I tried to study and defend it for myself, I found there were some passages that just do not harmonize. I was unable to find any satisfactory solution to these problems until Marv Rosenthal (who, after years of teaching and defending the pre-trib view) wrote why he changed his position. I carefully studied out his basis for this.

While I do not think his views solve every mystery of end time prophecy, and there is much left to learn, pre-wrath solved all of my dilemmas. And the more I studied since, the more I see it as correctly explaining prophetic passages regarding Christ’s return and end times events.

I don’t see how anyone can argue against pre-millenialism or a literal seven-year period defined by Daniel’s seventieth week. Likewise, I don’t see how anyone can argue against Christ’s return being simultaneous with the onset of the Day of the Lord. The only question this leaves, which I think settles the argument between pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, and pre-wrath, is a precise definition and explanation of the Day of the Lord.

Well, let's first set a time table. The "Day of the Lord" is the time period from the rapture of the "church" the body of Christ to the end of that period which climaxes in the battle of Armageddon. Christ does not return to earth but we meet Him in the air. He is not seen by all the people on earth. That event begins the seven years that God again deals with the nation of Israel as He did prior to Christ's death.

The phrase "about the hour or the day no one knows" has to be about the beginning of that time period. Once the anti Christ signs the treaty (which cannot happen until the "church" is gone) we know specifically the number of days to the battle of Armageddon. We also know the number of days to the middle of that time period when the anti Christ will set himself up in the Temple.

Therefore, if the "church" were on earth at the time of the signing of the peace treaty we could easily set a date for the Lord's return. Those who believe in mid trib would be able to count the days as would those who believe in post trib. Neither of those views work with Christ's words that no one would know the day or the hour.

I appreciate your feedback. I think you have a very good point about Christ waiting in Heaven until the time His enemies become His footstool. Yet I do not see any specific support from the passages in Hebrews that requires defining Revelation 19 as when this happens. I take it that this conclusion is more generally drawn from the idea that His second coming is a singular event.

Revelation clearly does not specify a particular time or sequence for either a resurrection of all the righteous to eternal life or the translation of living saints. All of the various views are inferred. (Revelation 20 describes the “first resurrection” but only mentions those beheaded during the time of anti-Christ.)

I do agree that Revelation 19 describes Christ and His armies coming to destroy His enemies. But there His armies have already been gathered together. Your position seems to be that these armies include resurrected saints and translated living saints. But when does that occur? Why do you believe it has to happen immediately before this final battle? How would the events from Revelation 8 and onward NOT qualify as Christ putting His enemies under His feet?

As an aside, I am curious as to how you explain Christ being on the Mount of Olives in Revelation 14:1.

“The incarnation marked the first time he came”

In one sense this is true. He became a man and came into the world in one sense at the incarnation. He also entered the world in another sense at His birth. In yet another sense He became a man by maturing and growing into manhood. I am not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with your point. I am just referring back to our earlier discussion that both His first and second coming involve a time period.

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

See how Peter includes the transfiguration as part of His first coming?

I believe that Christ’s second coming marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord and continues through the millennial reign. While I appreciate the points you have made regarding Christ waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool, these passages only seem to further reinforce the concept of His return coinciding with the Day of the Lord.

If it can be supported that the Day of the Lord does not begin until Revelation 19, I think that would be an overwhelming argument for a post-trib rapture. The scriptures I read regarding the Day of the Lord seem to indicate otherwise. It appears to me this time period begins after the sixth seal in Revelation 6 and continues until the thousand year reign begins in Revelation 20.

>>I agree with the mid-tribulation rapture that the end of Revelation 6 is where the translation of living saints occurs, and is described in Revelation 7 as those who come out of THE GREAT TRIBULATION.<<

The tribulation saints are not part of the "church". The wrath of God has already begun by Revelation 6:17. The faithful believers of this age of grace are promised to never suffer the wrath of God. The "church", the bride of Christ will be with Christ for that entire 7 year period. If you study the ancient Jewish wedding customs you will see that the bride and groom are sequestered alone for 7 days prior to coming out to the world. It's at that point that the wedding feast is held. That corresponds to the wedding feast we find in Revelation 19 at the end of that 7 year period.

>>is a precise definition and explanation of the Day of the Lord.<<

It's rather simple really. The "Day of the Lord" is that period of time during the last seven years of Daniel's 490 year prophecy for Israel. John writes at the beginning of Revelation that he found himself "in the spirit in the Lord's day". Now you may think it says "on" the Lord's day but consider this. First of all the Greek word used for both of the instances where my quote says "in" is ἐν (en) and is used 2775 times in the New Testament. Nearly all of them are translated "in" and when not could be. Here is Strong's definition.

1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within). [http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm]

We see that all of the events of Revelation happen within that time frame.

Singular event, yes, I’d say that all right. I’ll try to break this down for you. On each point, I’m not going to look up all the passages, I think I am conversing with someone well versed in eschatological passages to know what I am talking about.

1. This is the book of Hebrews, to interpret it rightly we need to know the prophetic background of the Hebrews. They weren’t amillennialists, they had a future premill kingdom hope, as reflected in the OT and their inter-testament literature. Neither were they pretribs or prewraths, the OT and inter-testament literature shows they looked to a grand singular event that would close out this age while ushering in the age to come (an earthly Messianic kingdom).

2. One of the central eschatological themes developed in the inter-testament period was “this world (or age), and the world (age) to come.” Since this is cited in numerous places in the NT, Christ and the apostles must have continued in the same expectation. Heb. 6:5 alludes to it, it says, even in this age we have tasted of “the powers of the world/age to come.”

3. In the book of Hebrews, “the end” had a particular meaning to them, 6:11, for instance, amidst apostatizing, they were continually admonished to keep faith in Christ “stedfast unto the end.” What end? The end of “this world,” or this age.

4. The passages I have been citing from Hebrews, 9:28, 10:12,13, are in perfect agreement with my previous three points. Christ’s appearing “the second time,” and him not leaving heaven until his enemies are in position to be destroyed, to the readers of Hebrews was to occur at the “end” of this world/age. In one event, the closing out of this world while ushering in the next.

5. Hence, the passages I have been citing are not stand alone, they are in perfect agreement with the rest of Hebrews, with the commonly held end "of this world – beginning of the next” prophetic expectation of the Hebrews.

6. Is the prophetic expectation of the Hebrews one thing, while Rev. 19 presents something altogether other? I see no conflict, I’m quite confident the same expectation in Hebrews is what we see depicted in Rev. 19 – though in very apocalyptic language.

7. Not only Revelation, but the rest of prophetic scripture has the expectation I have tried to bring out in Hebrews.

8. Instead of reading NT prophecy through the prism of prewrath theory, try reading it as if they only believed in one event. It harmonizes very well.

“We see that all of the events of Revelation happen within that time frame.”

Does this include the message to the seven churches? Does it also include the millennial reign?

Because John had the visions on the Lord’s day, that is supposed to conclusively prove that ALL of the events of these visions are part of the Day of the Lord? I’m sorry, but that argument carries no weight at all. This appears to be a case of trying to cite verses as proof texts and then forcing a meaning into them.

There are many passages describing the Day of the Lord. I do not see any that describe the seal judgments. I do see several indicators that the seal judgments lead up to and are prior to the arrival of the day of the Lord.

I have yet to hear a single solitary argument as to why the Day of the Lord cannot be the latter part of Daniel’s seventieth week, immediately following the Great Tribulation (which is cut short by the arrival of the Day of the Lord). The only counter arguments I have even heard are essentially saying this does not fit the pre-trib paradigm. Could you provide just one reason why this cannot be the case?

“That is not restricted to the events of Revelation.”

True, but the events of the Olivet discourse and Revelation 6 are a set of specific events in a precise order that serve as “signs” of the coming end of the age. Note the questions the disciples asked Christ:

Matthew 24:3
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Note also how these events are connected with the imminence of His return:

Luke 21:28
Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

This is in contrast to the beginning of the church age in which Christ’s return was not imminent.

Acts 1:11
Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.

The Olivet discourse also references Daniel’s seventieth week and the abomination of desolation.

“If you study the ancient Jewish wedding customs you will see that the bride and groom are sequestered alone for 7 days prior to coming out to the world. It’s at that point that the wedding feast is held. That corresponds to the wedding feast we find in Revelation 19 at the end of that 7 year period.”

I agree that this sounds nice, but it is not actually in the Bible. There is no scripture that says there is a marriage at the beginning of this time frame or that the church will be in Heaven after the rapture for seven years. I have a hard time accepting Jewish traditions as the basis for Bible prophecy. It would fit nicely with a pre-trib view, but that is not an authoritative basis for accepting a pre-trib view, nor is an internal consistency of that view.

“The wrath of God has already begun by Revelation 6:17. The faithful believers of this age of grace are promised to never suffer the wrath of God.”

I agree that believers will not go through God’s wrath. This verse marks the arrival of the Day of the Lord or Day of Wrath in Revelation. It is when the rapture occurs. In chapter 7 we see a great multitude that came out of the Great Tribulation. How? And in chapter 8 we see the fiery destruction of earth begins. The signs in the heavens during the sixth seal match those that mark the end of the Great Tribulation and beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Joel 2:31
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.

Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Where does this event occur in the Revelation?

Revelation 6:12
I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.

What makes all of the people of the earth suddenly realize that the Day of Wrath has arrived? How do they know it is from the Lamb? How do they go from persecuting believers during the fifth seal to trembling and crying out in fear of “Him Who sits on the throne”? Perhaps it is because they witness Christ returning in great power and glory and the rapture of living saints to Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

Can you find any similarly described event in Revelation other than in 6:16-17?

“The ‘Day of the Lord’ is the time period from the rapture of the ‘church’ the body of Christ to the end of that period which climaxes in the battle of Armageddon.”

I agree with your definition. I think this definition works regardless of a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath view.

“Christ does not return to earth but we meet Him in the air.”

I agree. The only view that does not agree is post-trib.

“He is not seen by all the people on earth.”

What us your basis for this? I do not see any Biblical support for this view.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-8
since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is this referring to the rapture or not? If not, then how is it when believers receive their rest with the apostles? If so, then how can it be a hidden rapture? And how is their a period of relative peace at the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week if angels coming with Christ are executing judgments of flaming fire?

“That event begins the seven years that God again deals with the nation of Israel as He did prior to Christ’s death.”

Why would God return to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Law? You should take another look at Daniel 9 as to what God is going to accomplish in that final week. Israel is going to be brought to repentance and salvation during this time, but it will be done through their realization that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah and that the anti-Christ they trusted at the beginning of that week, if false.

“The phrase ‘about the hour or the day no one knows’ has to be about the beginning of that time period.”

It only has to be in order to force the passage to fit preconceived views. Look at the context:

Matthew 24:36-44
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

How can His coming at the end of the tribulation be like a thief and at an unexpected time if it is exactly seven years from the signing of the anti-Christ treaty and exactly three-and-a-half years from the abomination of desolation?

The only view that avoids this date-setting problem is the pre-wrath view, because the Great Tribulation begins at the abomination of desolation but is cut short by the sudden and unexpected return of Christ, followed by the onset of the Day of the Lord which completes the remainder of Daniel’s seventieth week.

Thanks for taking the time to present a well-thought out argument. It makes these discussions so much more interesting and a better learning experience.

“as reflected in the OT and their inter-testament literature”

It is certainly valuable to look at this background, but the scriptures prior to Paul do not discuss the rapture of living saints because it was a mystery revealed by Paul. It is the timing of this event that is most crucial because it has a practical, real-world impact on how we live and prepare ourselves for future events.

Further, it appears that Daniel was not properly interpreted by the generation of Christ’s earthly ministry because they did not recognize the “time of their visitation”. Particularly, a proper understanding of Daniel 9 would have caused them to be aware that Christ had to be there during this exact generation. Further, Christ alludes to the abomination of desolation as a future event and adds “let him who reads understand” indicating that they apparently did not understand it correctly. Paul further elaborates on Daniel’s prophecies and alludes to this in 2 Thessalonians 2. Revelation does also.

The OT also provides rich details about the coming Day of the Lord which is mentioned in Hebrews as well as by Paul, Peter and John.

I am assuming that we share a similar understanding of Daniel’s seventieth week, and that it is agreed that Christ return will occur simultaneously to the onset of the Day of the Lord. Can you indicate if this is not so?

But if it is so, how do you define the Day of the Lord and how it fits into the order of events described in Revelation?

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.