A Short History of the Doctrine of a Rapture before the Great Tribulation

[Interplanner]

Your futurism is out of control Bible2. Why on earth would Jesus speak so directly, practically, poignantly and dramatically to situations 3009 years away? I mean you are absolutely obsessed that it is future and this is as bad as any stronghold there ever was.

I don't care what little pet doctrines or charts or constructs or chronographs fall to pieces, you have to at least be 50/50 about this because of Lk 23:28+. And then once you realize that is for immediate, present use, you realize that you can't just grasshop to the future any time in Mt 24 & //s that you feel like it. There has to be coherence.

So again I ask you to see that there is an intended shift from the immediate generation and Judea at v29 (Mt 24 & //s), and leave well enough alone. Otherwise this whole thing looks like Moore, OK, on May 23 2013. It becomes a disaster of communication.

 

[Interplanner]

When I read you Bible2, you have built-in the phrase 'never-fulfilled.' Sometimes more than once a sentence. In light of Lk 23:28+, I'd like you to go print one of your too-long explanations, and take a black marker and delete all those and read it again, visualizing the overwhelming calamity that happened from 66 on in that generation. That will help you at least see outside your futurism, which you need to do to see what is going on and what it is doing to you. You cannot see this right now.

 

[Bible2]

Interplanner said in post 41:

There has to be coherence.

Just as the highly detailed tribulation events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 find no historical fulfillment, so the tribulation events of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 find no historical fulfillment. For example, Luke 21:24 refers to the same future treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles as Revelation 11:2b, during the Antichrist's future, literal 42-month worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), the details of which time period are shown from four different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13). The myriad details of these chapters have never been fulfilled. Also, Jesus' second coming and the church's gathering together (rapture) in Matthew 24:30-31 (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) have never been fulfilled, but must occur "immediately after" the future tribulation of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6).

Also, the end of Herod's temple building (also called the second temple building) in 70 AD didn't fulfill Matthew 24:2, for the stones of the second temple's Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) still stand today one on top of the other, just as they did when Jesus spoke that prophecy. Matthew 24:2 included the Wailing Wall, for Matthew 24:2 wasn't referring to only the single second temple building in the center of the Temple Mount (the building that contained the holy place and the most holy place), but was referring to "all these things", all the plural "buildings"/structures/oikodome (G3619) of the entire second-temple complex (Matthew 24:1). Indeed, Matthew 24:2 could even have been spoken just to the north and west of the Wailing Wall, for it was spoken just after Jesus had departed from the temple complex (Matthew 24:1), and one of the main temple-complex exits (called Wilson's Arch and bridge by archaeologists) was just to the north of the Wailing Wall and at the same level as the top of the Temple Mount (see the temple-complex map-insert in the December, 2008 issue of National Geographic magazine).

Also, in Matthew 24:2, the "here" can include not just the entire second-temple complex, but every structure throughout Jerusalem. For the similar statement in Luke 19:44 applied to the whole city (Luke 19:41-44). Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 could be fulfilled at the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before and at Jesus' second coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

 

[Interplanner]

Lk 21? Neither are future! See Lk 23:28+. He's talking about the same thing. You have to explain your 'leap to the future.'

 

[josephearl]

“But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. “For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ “Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ “For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”” (Luke 23:28–31, NASB95)

I would think it is presumptuous to assume that Jesus was not speaking to the distant future. I am of the mind that this is the typical near/far prophetic revealing. It was relevant to those who heard then in a partial fulfillment and the complete fulfillment would come at a later date.
That's my explanation of this obvious quantum leap to the future.

 

[Interplanner]

Bible2:
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the future (and I have posts way back about that--about a future replication of the past) if you are willing to sync into history.

 

[Interplanner]

Hi Joseph,
can you give an example from the OT? We are not talking typology here so it wouldn't be 'things that happened to Joseph in Gen 39-50.' The warnings of Mt 24A and Lk 23:28 are too direct, vivid, concrete, immediate, vital, urgent.

if you are a literalist, then you might say, well, the mountains never tumbled. However, that is not the point is it? The point is they'd rather commit suicide than face God.

the other intersting thing about your remark is that we are discussing your presumption, not the absence of mine! Your presumption, and Bible2, and many futurists, is that the default mentality of Jesus and the listeners to this was 'never mind the invasion that's going to hit us in a few years, we're really distraught that some people on the i.net are going to have trouble 2-3000 years from now!' Wow, that is soooo realistic!

 

[Interplanner]

re typical revealing.
The near/far was not typical after all. What Jesus said in Mt 24 before v29 was at hand and Judean-located. The rest was honestly expected 'immediately after.' But there was an allowance, which means nothing was typical. The allowance was that the end might be a long time away.

But the things described in 29-31 are not replications of before v29; 29-31 is global, terminal, shaking the whole universe.

 

[Manasseh_]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this argument sounds? You claim that the Old Testament shows two comings of Messiah, not by showing a scripture that says that, but by showing different scriptures that prove that. This is exactly what I said the Old Testament does.

oh how soon we forget...........that's not what you said, here's your quote from the previous post after I replied.........

"As to no scripture speaking of a return in 2 phases, no OT scripture ever said Messiah would come more than once.
"
I simply showed that the OT does foretell Christs' first and second coming and there's no 2 parts or 2 phases of it........if this isn't what you meant then you should have stated clearly what you meant, the way it reads is that there is only one advent of Christ, ie, his first coming foretold to Daniel in his prophecy

Then you claim that the New Testament does not do the same thing. But that is exactly what it does. The New Testament shows tow furutre comings of Jesus in exactly the same way the Old Testament showed two comings of Messiah, not by stating that fact, but by showing it. For Jesus said in John 14:3 that "I will come again, and receive you to myself. But, as recorded in Jude 14, He had already said through Enoch that "the lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints." He cannot come for them and with them at the same time.


Again, in Matthew 25, we read that after the bridegroom has come and the door is shut, others will come saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. (verses 10-11) But in Matthew 13:30, we find that the tares, which he said represent the wicked, will be gathered before the wheat, which he said represent the righteous. Now it id physically to gather the wicked before gathering the righteous, and at the same time gather the righteous before gathering the wicked.

So we see that even though the New Testament never explicitly stated a 2 stage future coming, it shows it in exactly the same way that the Old Testament showed two comings of Messiah, even though it never said there would be two comings.

now here you are doing exactly what pretribbers have to do with scriptures in order to make them work to fit the doctrine , you're taking one event (Christ's second coming) and trying to turn it into 2 seperate events.........

one example you gave was that Christ can't come for his saints and with his saints at the same time............but he certainly can..........just as he said he commands them to be gathered to himself then as prophecy states they go with him to Jerusalem........so he comes for them and they come with him to establish his kingdom

you took verses from John's gospel then what Jude said of Enoch's prophecy and ASSUMED that this had to be 2 seperate events

according to this method there's no mention at all of a tribulation in John 14 , either before or after..........so am I to assume according to those verses you produced that there will be no great tribulation............the same with Jude speaking of Enoch, no record of Enoch saying the saints would be gathered first, so again assume that they won't

it's all asburd and that's what your false doctrine is based on ........nothing but absurd assumptions of EVERY verse you use as proof text

why ? ..............simply because as I have said so many times before ........you and your doctrine do not have ONE SINGLE EXPLICT verse in the whole of scripture to show that Christs' second coming works out to 2 parts.....................not one............so the only way to make the doctrine work is to use creative assumption all invented from mens' imaginations...........a false empty hope never promised or prophesied in scripture

I on the other hand have direct word from Christ himself in his Olivet prophecy which says EXPLICITLY that he will come AFTER TRIBULATION..............a direct prophecy and promise made by him along with many other verses which corraborate what he said

 

[Interplanner]

I think it will help clear things up for you guys if you remember that Mt 24 before v29 is about the events of the 1st century. that could help you. it could help because you wouldn't be trying to 'solve' for the great trib. You wouldn't have to worry about pre or post.

 

[Dwylcs]

Biblewriter,
There seems to be a continual demand for 'explicitness' as far as Scriptures concerning the Rapture.
To be fair, are there explicit Scriptures in the Bible predicting the Ascension of Christ?

(any in the Gospels would only be generally known after being published subsequent to the fact)


…

 

[Biblewriter]

oh how soon we forget...........that's not what you said, here's your quote from the previous post after I replied.........

"As to no scripture speaking of a return in 2 phases, no OT scripture ever said Messiah would come more than once.
"
I simply showed that the OT does foretell Christs' first and second coming and there's no 2 parts or 2 phases of it........if this isn't what you meant then you should have stated clearly what you meant, the way it reads is that there is only one advent of Christ, ie, his first coming foretold to Daniel in his prophecy

I have been on the highway for almost a week, so I have been unable to answer you until now. I do not think I could have stated it any more more clearly than I did in post number 18 of this thread of this thread, in which I said, "As to no scripture speaking of a return in 2 phases, no OT scripture ever said Messiah would come more than once. But the OT prophecies about the Messiah contained many details that would be contradictions if He had only been coming once. In the same way, the NT prophecies also contain many details that would be contradictions if Jesus were only returning once. The resolution to the apparent contradiction in the OT prophecies was that Messiah was coming more than once. And that is the resolution to the apparent contradictions in the NT prophecies about the return of Jesus. So your argument does not hold water."

Nor does your argument that the Old Testament indeed showed that Messiah would come more than once was exactly what I said it said.

There was not even one Old Testament scripture that ever said Messiah would come more than once, but there were many that showed that He would come more then once. We are agreed upon this. What we are not agreed upon is that we find exactly the same thing in the New Testament. Although not even one New Testament scripture says Jesus will return more than once, just like no Old testament scripture said He would c0me more than once, many New Testament scriptures show that Jesus will return more than once, just as many Old Testament scriptures show that he will return.

now here you are doing exactly what pretribbers have to do with scriptures in order to make them work to fit the doctrine , you're taking one event (Christ's second coming) and trying to turn it into 2 seperate events.........

one example you gave was that Christ can't come for his saints and with his saints at the same time............but he certainly can..........just as he said he commands them to be gathered to himself then as prophecy states they go with him to Jerusalem........so he comes for them and they come with him to establish his kingdom

Yes, certainly, these things can happen at the same time, if words do not mean what they say. But if words have meanings, and if God actually means what He says, these things simply cannot happen at the same time.

you took verses from John's gospel then what Jude said of Enoch's prophecy and ASSUMED that this had to be 2 seperate events

according to this method there's no mention at all of a tribulation in John 14 , either before or after..........so am I to assume according to those verses you produced that there will be no great tribulation............the same with Jude speaking of Enoch, no record of Enoch saying the saints would be gathered first, so again assume that they won't

it's all asburd and that's what your false doctrine is based on ........nothing but absurd assumptions of EVERY verse you use as proof text

why ? ..............simply because as I have said so many times before ........you and your doctrine do not have ONE SINGLE EXPLICT verse in the whole of scripture to show that Christs' second coming works out to 2 parts.....................not one............so the only way to make the doctrine work is to use creative assumption all invented from mens' imaginations...........a false empty hope never promised or prophesied in scripture

I on the other hand have direct word from Christ himself in his Olivet prophecy which says EXPLICITLY that he will come AFTER TRIBULATION..............a direct prophecy and promise made by him along with many other verses which corraborate what he said

There is an explicit scripture (Revelation 3:10) that says the faithful will be kept out of the hour of temptation. There is an explicit scripture that says that God will command his reapers to gather the tares first to burn, then gather the wheat, and another explicit scripture that says that after those who were ready go in with the bridegroom, the others will still be outside seeking admittance. If they were burned first, they cannot be standing outside the door, seeking admittance. These are only a few examples.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter said in post 52:

The resolution to the apparent contradiction in the OT prophecies was that Messiah was coming more than once. And that is the resolution to the apparent contradictions in the NT prophecies about the return of Jesus.

There was a contrast between the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's coming, with some of them showing him coming to be meekly crucified for our sins (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22), and others showing him descending from heaven to wage war and to reign on the earth (Zechariah 14, Micah 4:1-4). But nothing in the Old Testament or New Testament requires a future (to us), pre-tribulation coming of Christ versus a post-tribulation coming of Christ. For all the as-yet-unfulfilled Old Testament and New Testament prophecies regarding Christ's coming will be fulfilled at or sometime after his post-tribulation, second coming.

Biblewriter said in post 52:

There is an explicit scripture (Revelation 3:10) that says the faithful will be kept out of the hour of temptation.

The seven epistles to seven churches in Revelation chapters 2-3 were sent to seven, literal, first century AD local church congregations in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) (what's now Western Turkey).

Revelation 3:10 meant that the literal, first century AD, local church congregation in the city of Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7) in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) would be kept safe from a persecution which came upon all the Roman world during the time of the Roman emperor Domitian. For the apostle John saw his Revelation vision (Revelation 1:1) near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), and Domitian persecuted the church toward the end of his reign. The righteous, literal, first century AD, local church congregation in the city of Smyrna (Revelation 2:8) in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) had to suffer and die in that persecution over a period of ten literal days (Revelation 2:10).

The first century AD church in Philadelphia didn't have to be taken out of the world to be kept safe from (Greek: "ek") that persecution. For, as Jesus prayed for the church in general: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from (ek) the evil" (John 17:15,20). Also, the first century AD church in Philadelphia didn't have to be removed from time itself, or from the earth, in order to be kept from the "hour" (or the "time") of that persecution, just as, for example, a student in a classroom who has been excused from taking a test doesn't have to be removed from time itself, or from the classroom, in order to be excused from that time of testing. For he can be made to sit at his desk reading during that time, which won't be a time of testing for him.

Also, the first century AD persecution of Revelation 3:10 (and Revelation 2:10) was only "world"-wide in the sense of the Roman "world" (cf. Luke 2:1). So the subsequent reference to those on the "earth" in Revelation 3:10 should be understood as those Christians living on the earth during that time in the Roman Empire, as opposed to those Christians who had already died and gone to heaven (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23).