Matthew 24:40 Is the rapture secret?
- Thread starter rrcn
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi sawdust, As I understand it, from a PreMill, Postrib perspective, the saints who have become Christians in the Millennial Age as resurrected after the final battle with God. That's when the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven and is forever planted upon the New Earth.
Preflood saints and postflood saints, prior to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are resurrected at the same time as all of the preMillennial saints, namely at the return of Christ at the end of the age.
Preflood saints and postflood saints, prior to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are resurrected at the same time as all of the preMillennial saints, namely at the return of Christ at the end of the age.
The web page is the explanation - scripture verses arranged in a table according to the Order of Events based on my study of the subject. My intent in suggesting that you look at it is so that you see for yourself directly from scripture the associations, patterns, etc. represented there. That way, in a very real sense, the explanation comes from scripture rather than from me.
There really is no taken/left in/with the flood - only survived/destroyed. If anything, the 8 righteous souls were taken into the ark while the wicked were left to be destroyed by the flood.
It is the same with the Second Coming of Christ - the saints are taken while the wicked are left.
I agree with you that the "wicked taken" idea is nonsense.
Of course, I believe that 'pre-trib' is nonsense (not biblical); nonetheless, you and others may certainly believe it if you wish.
While I can agree that the "far fetched theory" is certainly that - I do not believe it has any part in the 'post-trib' view. (not mine anyway)
BTW - I believe the word you meant to use was 'intact'...?
It is the same with the Second Coming of Christ - the saints are taken while the wicked are left.
I agree with you that the "wicked taken" idea is nonsense.
Of course, I believe that 'pre-trib' is nonsense (not biblical); nonetheless, you and others may certainly believe it if you wish.
While I can agree that the "far fetched theory" is certainly that - I do not believe it has any part in the 'post-trib' view. (not mine anyway)
BTW - I believe the word you meant to use was 'intact'...?
Yes, I can appreciate that. However, I've read most everything that can be said on the subject, including all of the passages. It's really in how you approach these passages, ie what presuppositions you have before you go in to consider these passages. I recently was asked to read a book, and I went through and answered every point that I thought was major from the Pretrib point of view. I could share that, but I don't want to bog you down any more than I want to be bogged down in a long read.
No
Jesus knows how to
Count.
7 verses later , after the one taken/left of matt 24, Jesus tells the virgin parable.
Again, the same 50% are taken.
The ones ready.
That's the thing.
In neither story does "earth's population" fit as the group the gathering of 50% taken.
In both stories the group supplying the ones taken has to be a subgroup of earth's population.
In both stories the ones left are in unity with the ones taken. Living, working, sleeping, felowsipping,
It is, without question, the church.
NOTHING else fits.
Jesus knows how to
Count.
7 verses later , after the one taken/left of matt 24, Jesus tells the virgin parable.
Again, the same 50% are taken.
The ones ready.
That's the thing.
In neither story does "earth's population" fit as the group the gathering of 50% taken.
In both stories the group supplying the ones taken has to be a subgroup of earth's population.
In both stories the ones left are in unity with the ones taken. Living, working, sleeping, felowsipping,
It is, without question, the church.
NOTHING else fits.
You don't seem to be understanding what the problem is with your argument. You're saying they can't be unbelievers that are taken because the world's population is never half and half. But whether it is unbelievers or believers taken, it is still half and half.
You also ignore the "taking" is likened to the flood taking away the unbelievers and the parable of the virgins is a comparison of contrast, not a comparison of similarity. Jesus contrasts between the wise person who watches and is ready for judgement (ie is in Christ and safe) and the idiot who lets his house get broken into and is destroyed in the process by the flood of God's wrath.
The issue is not how many are taken or left, the issue is are you ready for judgement.
You also ignore the "taking" is likened to the flood taking away the unbelievers and the parable of the virgins is a comparison of contrast, not a comparison of similarity. Jesus contrasts between the wise person who watches and is ready for judgement (ie is in Christ and safe) and the idiot who lets his house get broken into and is destroyed in the process by the flood of God's wrath.
The issue is not how many are taken or left, the issue is are you ready for judgement.
One of the Christian scholars, Blaising, who defends Pretrib defines the Day of the Lord as inclusive of not just the day of Christ's Return but the many things about Antichrist and signs that precede it. He thinks a biblical pattern showing Christ's imminent arrival *before* some specified events take place so that all, the Pretrib Rapture, the Reign of Antichrist, and the 2nd Coming all constitute the "Day of the Lord."
The problem with this is, he utilizes the Olivet Discourse as a pattern of this when it is simply a Jewish Prophecy determining that when Jerusalem falls to the Romans, the Jewish People will remain in judgment until the end of the age. There is no room for an idea of the imminent Coming of Christ prior to this.
The day of his Coming simply will not be believed in and expected by the wicked who are unashamed of their deeds. So they will be surprised when it comes.
And the day Christ comes back will be in the midst of a world judgment, probably international warfare with nuclear dimensions. This will hardly be a "secret Coming"--it will come unexpectly to a world that resists self-destruction. The world, in a sense, will surprise itself. But Christ's Coming itself will be the ultimate surprise and the final judgment.
The problem with this is, he utilizes the Olivet Discourse as a pattern of this when it is simply a Jewish Prophecy determining that when Jerusalem falls to the Romans, the Jewish People will remain in judgment until the end of the age. There is no room for an idea of the imminent Coming of Christ prior to this.
The day of his Coming simply will not be believed in and expected by the wicked who are unashamed of their deeds. So they will be surprised when it comes.
And the day Christ comes back will be in the midst of a world judgment, probably international warfare with nuclear dimensions. This will hardly be a "secret Coming"--it will come unexpectly to a world that resists self-destruction. The world, in a sense, will surprise itself. But Christ's Coming itself will be the ultimate surprise and the final judgment.
There is literally nothing but scripture in the table. The approach is reflected in the arrangement of verses in the table.
Do not presuppose 'pre-trib' in considering the verses/passages - instead, let the verses/passages speak to you.
If you always interpret scripture force-wrapped-around 'pre-trib', you will gain nothing useful - only error.
It would be a very long read for me to explain the significance of all of the verses in the entire table.
How I arrived at my conclusion(s) regarding Armageddon rests in the study of many verses/passages.
To ask me to explain that would be a very long read indeed. However, the table contains the answer.
The 'Wrath of God' is post resurrection/rapture.
Armageddon is post resurrection/rapture.
The answer you seek - is in the table.
Do not presuppose 'pre-trib' in considering the verses/passages - instead, let the verses/passages speak to you.
If you always interpret scripture force-wrapped-around 'pre-trib', you will gain nothing useful - only error.
It would be a very long read for me to explain the significance of all of the verses in the entire table.
How I arrived at my conclusion(s) regarding Armageddon rests in the study of many verses/passages.
To ask me to explain that would be a very long read indeed. However, the table contains the answer.
The 'Wrath of God' is post resurrection/rapture.
Armageddon is post resurrection/rapture.
The answer you seek - is in the table.
I've seen all the tables, and read most all the books. If you have a specific argument I will give you my take. I already went into this with an open mind. In fact I went into it with a Pretrib mindset. Then I memorized all of 2 Thes 2. That changed m mind, and nothing else. Paul teaches Postrib explicitly. I can't get around that and be honest with myself and God.
So, you read 2 Thessalonaisn, even if you have a Pretrib mindset, and tell me how you can get around Paul's explicit Postrib theology? I've heard the arguments, but they seem contrived, and not based on what is said alone.
I was asked many years ago that before I discuss this subject (Zola Levit's underling) I should read Dr. Pentecost's book on the subject. It was huge and I refused.
I have read Walvoord's treatment of the subject, and wrote notes, answering every relevant point. So it's not like I haven't covered the field. I recently read Blaise's argument for Pretrib, and again took notes and rebutted every relevant point.
Take it one point at a time, and I won't have to write out another full book refutation...
So, you read 2 Thessalonaisn, even if you have a Pretrib mindset, and tell me how you can get around Paul's explicit Postrib theology? I've heard the arguments, but they seem contrived, and not based on what is said alone.
I was asked many years ago that before I discuss this subject (Zola Levit's underling) I should read Dr. Pentecost's book on the subject. It was huge and I refused.
I have read Walvoord's treatment of the subject, and wrote notes, answering every relevant point. So it's not like I haven't covered the field. I recently read Blaise's argument for Pretrib, and again took notes and rebutted every relevant point.
Take it one point at a time, and I won't have to write out another full book refutation...
You are suggesting that the event that takes place in the "twinkling of an eye" includes only "the change?"
1Cor 15.51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
So, you think the trumpet will sound, some time will pass, and then an instant change? You think the trump will be excluded from this flash?
To be honest, it sounds like the second the trumpet sounds the flash will happen. This means somehow those "alive and remaining" will join the dead in Christ as *all of them* change in an instant?
We know that Christ will return like lightning. So it will not surprise me if we are caught up to him like a bolt of lightning, and are changed in the same instant.
I don't know the basis for Paul's reference to this "flashing change?" I'll have to investigate. Thanks for pointing it out. The emphasis here does seem to be on the "change" itself, though it does seem to be precipitated by a trumpet sound associated with Christ's descent.
1Cor 15.51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
So, you think the trumpet will sound, some time will pass, and then an instant change? You think the trump will be excluded from this flash?
To be honest, it sounds like the second the trumpet sounds the flash will happen. This means somehow those "alive and remaining" will join the dead in Christ as *all of them* change in an instant?
We know that Christ will return like lightning. So it will not surprise me if we are caught up to him like a bolt of lightning, and are changed in the same instant.
I don't know the basis for Paul's reference to this "flashing change?" I'll have to investigate. Thanks for pointing it out. The emphasis here does seem to be on the "change" itself, though it does seem to be precipitated by a trumpet sound associated with Christ's descent.
In case you missed it - I am very 'post-trib'. 
I grew up with 'pre-trib' teachings. However, in my teen years (late 1970s) - through my own personal study of scripture - determined it to be in error.
I have been very happily 'post-trib' ever since.
I grew up with 'pre-trib' teachings. However, in my teen years (late 1970s) - through my own personal study of scripture - determined it to be in error.
I have been very happily 'post-trib' ever since.
Great!!
In case you missed it - I am very 'post-trib'.
I grew up with 'pre-trib' teachings. However, in my teen years (late 1970s) - through my own personal study of scripture - determined it to be in error.
I have been very happily 'post-trib' ever since.
I grew up with 'pre-trib' teachings. However, in my teen years (late 1970s) - through my own personal study of scripture - determined it to be in error.
I have been very happily 'post-trib' ever since.
I've had my own in the past!Anyway, I checked out your outline. Here is a conversation I had with someone yesterday on a different forum. We certainly agree on Postrib, but we don't always get there the same way. This explains some of the points I hold to that most Futurists disagree with. I'm pretty confident in my view though, since there is historical and Scriptural validity to it.
Someone said:
My understanding is that not all the Church Fathers agreed - and how could they?
I responded:My understanding is that not all the Church Fathers agreed - and how could they?
Most all of the Church Fathers saw Daniel's prophecy in Dan 9 and Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet Discourse as focused mainly on the events leading up to 70 AD. Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were the exceptions, along with perhaps a few others, who held to a future 70th Week of Daniel, applying to the Antichrist.
Today, Futurism, in the mold of Dispensationalism, has adopted the model of Irenaeus--not that of the vast majority of Church Fathers. They wish to see what I believe to be historically-fulfiled prophecies yet to be fulfilled in our time or beyond.
There is no question that there are bibical prophecies yet to be fulfilled. But there are also unquestionably biblical prophecies that have been historically fulfilled.
Someone said:
The verses that follow v.15 in Matthew 24 make it clear that the tribulation was like no other and would never happen again. Verse 30 clearly describes Jesus' return. That did not happen in 70AD.
I responded:The verses that follow v.15 in Matthew 24 make it clear that the tribulation was like no other and would never happen again. Verse 30 clearly describes Jesus' return. That did not happen in 70AD.
Jesus identified this "Great Tribulation"--the worst that will ever be, as a "Jewish Punishment only beginning in 70 AD. It will last age-long and was a prophecy specifically directed at Jewish history. This is most clearly seen in Luke's version (ch. 21). Jesus will indeed return at the end of the current "Jewish Diaspora."
This is the worst punishment in Israel's history not just because of the extreme violence of any particular event, but more, because of the sheer longevity of the event, lasting the entire age and threatening the very existence of Israel in exile.
Someone said:
The siege of Jerusalem was not preceded by a warning sign of an abomination standing in the Holy Place. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 description is pretty explicit. How is it remotely possible that occurred back then?
I responded:The siege of Jerusalem was not preceded by a warning sign of an abomination standing in the Holy Place. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 description is pretty explicit. How is it remotely possible that occurred back then?
The Roman Army, as I said, arrived twice, the 1st time under Cestius Gallus, giving Jesus' Disciples ample warning to "flee to the mountains." This Roman Army was the "Abomination of Desolation," as I see it.
A few years later the Roman Army arrived again, still being called the "Abomination of Desolation." The Disciples had been warned, and were still fleeing by the time this 2nd Army arrived. By 70 AD there was no time left to prepare to leave--the remaining Disciples simply had to "flee" with the clothes on their back.
Paul's description in 2 Thes 2, of Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, is not related to the 70 AD event. Paul was well aware that the Temple would be destroyed, even though it was still funcitoning in his day.
So, I believe he was referring to Antichrist positioning himself simply in God's place, which Paul described as the Temple. Rulers did not sit in God's Temple in Jerusalem. Paul knew this. Not even Antichrist would do this.
Antichrist, therefore, will simply position himself in God's place, desribed as "the Temple," which is really in heaven. Antichrist positions himself as God on earth, as if he was God's presence within the old Temple of Solomon.