- Feb 22, 2006
- 3,166
- 106
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Many prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the tribulation sound simular. And many prophecy of the rapture and second comming sound interrelated, but it just isn't so. Many scripture point to a rapture and some definations just don't fit the goings on as described of the tribulation.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence. Christ goes on to describe specifically how it will be at His return. As such He does not need to continue to reiterate what He has already said. Again all of what you see being described after He speaks of the appearance of the Son of Man relates to what He just said about the appearance of the Son of Man. It is not in addition to it. Christ was quite eloquent. It would make no sense to break off into some obscure prophecy about a rapture and not be clear that He has changed the subject. The reason it is not clear is because He hasnt changed the subject. In fact the opposite is true.
He demonstrates that He is still describing the second coming, the coming of the Son of Man. Since His message from the beginning was about the chronological order of events leading up to the second coming why would He break from that and obscurely begin speaking about something that is supposed to happen before any of it, especially without prefacing His break from the subject and letting His audience in on His break from the subject? Since the nature of His discourse has been the chronological order of events why not include this at the beginning if it is supposed to be about a separate event that happens at the beginning? Why be so esoteric? Its because He hasnt changed the subject.
...so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Mat. 24:39-40)
What is then referring to? It indicates something happens and this event follows it or coincides with it or is the result of it. The event is the coming of the Son of Man that Christ has been discussing, the second coming. In other words, [At the coming of the Son of Man] shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Christ is still talking about the second coming here as He makes clear in verse 39. He is still referring to what He was talking about in verse 30.
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Mat 24:30)
Its not a break from the subject but a continuation and further description of the same subject, the same event, the second coming.
Matthew 24:29-31 is nothing like, and cannot be the same event as Matthew 24:36-38. Since we are looking at two discriptions of prophecied world events, what isn't there is as important as what is. Jesus wasn't leaving out the details.
Upvote
0