Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Pre-Trib Rapture

Unsealed.org ^ | 4/1/15 | Gary

[amessenger4god]

We have addressed the accusation before that the pre-trib rapture theory was invented by a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald in the early 19th century.  This is now widely known to be factually incorrect and in fact there are numerous references to a pre-trib rapture in late 18th century American writing, as well as contemporary (at that time) Catholic writings such as Manuel Lacunza's The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty.

Additionally, Chuck Missler has brought to light a writing from "Ephraem the Syrian" (b. 306; d. 373 AD) where this early Church deacon wrote in unequivocal language the following:

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

Now it has been charged that the above quote was not written by Ephraem himself, but a later writer possibly posing as Ephraem (called Pseudo-Ephraem).  This is possible, even likely, but is almost irrelevant as the writing was not made any later that 627 AD.  This means that the pre-tribulational rapture was positively taught no later than the early 7th century.

Other even more ancient writings have recently come to light as well.  Including from Cyprian:

"We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible... And do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an earlier departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent... Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom."

Cyprian died in 258 AD, so his above treatise had to have been written even before that year.  But far more amazing than Cyprian's quote, is Iranaeus' Against Heresies.  Iranaeus was only once removed from John himself (John likely being the very person who wrote down the Book of Revelation).  In Book 5, chapter 29, Iranaeus wrote:

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, There shall [then] be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.  [Matthew 24:21] For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. [1 Corinthians 15]"

Even in the context of the larger chapter, the very next thing that occurs in Iranaeus' timeline after the Church is "suddenly caught up" is the revelation of the antichrist.

All these references aside, the rapture itself is plainly taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  This verse alone proves that there will be a rapture event (unless, without justification, you want to interpret this verse symbolically).

And the timing of the rapture as pre-tribulational may be unequivocally taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 if apostasia is translated "departure".

In any case, while only time will tell and God alone knows how things will pan out, there are numerous reasons to confidently hold to a belief in the pre-trib rapture, not least of which is that Biblical scholars pretty much unanimously agree that the early church, both before and for awhile after 70 AD, believed almost universally in the imminent coming of Christ... an event that would come suddenly.

[Iscool]

Not throwing anything away, I’m just explaining that, since Scripture can’t contradict itself, any interpretation that tries to stretch the first resurrection out into multiple events separated by some period of time is not compatible with Scripture, and therefore, not worthy of consideration. If your interpretation creates contradictions, then clearly your interpretation is wrong, because Scripture is not self-contradictory.

How can you be a critic when you obviously don't have a clue what I'm talking about???

[Boogieman]

Your original comment was already contradictory. You say the firstfruits are part of the first resurrection. That cannot be correct, because they are already in heaven in Rev. 16. Shortly after John sees them, he hears:

“Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.””

Rev. 16:13

How can the firstfruits be a part of the first resurrection, if this statement shows the resurrection hasn’t happened yet? There are only two general resurrections, one for the righteous, and one to judgement. So those who die after the first resurrection are not blessed, far from it. This is a major contradiction just in your original post, so there is no need to delve any further into your theory to see that it is flawed.