50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[TheDivineWatermark]

[quoting fuller passages]

Matthew 8:11-12 -

"11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down [G347] with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of the heavens.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."



Luke 13:28-29 -

[v.27 ... "all ye workers of iniquity" who will say (as v.26 had just spelled out, 'but... but... but!' [so to speak]) "thou [Jesus] hast taught in our streets"]

28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down [G347] in the kingdom of God.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Wheat is the church - children of the kingdom.

See again my posts on the TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT" in Lev23... and how Rev14:4 (re: the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel listed in chpt 7) parallels the wording of the SECOND of those TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT" in Lev23, namely, in v.17 where it says, "TWO loaves" and "baken WITH LEAVEN" (<--that ain't US / 'the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY');

--and how James 1:18 says "A KIND of firstfruit / A CERTAIN firstfruit" (meaning, MORE THAN ONE KIND);

--there is MORE THAN ONE "harvest" in nature and in Scripture

--the "WHEAT" is harvested by means of a "tribulum" (harvesting implement);

--the EARLIER "harvest" (earlier from "the WHEAT" harvest, of these TWO) is harvested by means of "tossing UP INTO THE AIR" (and "BLOWING" away the chaff)

--"the 144,000" are "FIRSTFRUIT" of the "WHEAT" harvest (... but we/'the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY' are NOT "the WHEAT" harvest)

--this also has to do with the CHRONOLOGY issues I've posted about... (one small example: Matt22:7 [re: the 70ad events] AND THEN Matt22:8 "THEN SAITH HE to his servants" which necessarily must have taken place FOLLOWING the 70ad events [i.e. 95ad's writing of "[The] Revelation" see 1:1 and its wording (also comp 7:3)])

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

When you say 'harvest' - by definition - you are referring to a 'resurrection' - correct?

No.

Not necessarily.

For example, Matt13 (and its use of the word "harvest") is speaking of "still-living persons" at the time-slot being spoken of (in this case, "His Second Coming to the earth" general time-slot);

... (at THAT time) the "still-living persons" will either be "[said to the angels/reapers] gather ye FIRST the TARES" / "gather OUT all things that OFFEND"... or the opposite "but gather the WHEAT into My barn [/the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom that THESE ('the WHEAT') will be granted to ENTER and enjoy]"... NO "resurrection" is being referred to in this CONTEXT (nor in the passage taking place at the SAME time-slot, Matt25:31-34 and context, ALSO about "still-living persons" at the time of His Second Coming to the earth);

--"WHEAT" and "TARES" are things that are living and growing (i.e. ALIVE [/standing on the ground]... like, when you go to HARVEST them)

 

[Truth7t7]

"Jesus comes only once"

Rev 14
Jesus is sitting in a cloud with a sickle.
Gathers ripe fruit.
THEN ( which would be later/ after that GATHERING) we see ANOTHER gathering of "overripe/rotten fruit" specifically for the winepress.

BUT BEFORE THOSE TWO GATHERINGS THEIR IS ANOTHER GATHERING. ....THE 144k.

So nothing of the " can only come once cause i say so" deal is true.
Completely false.

Still not convinced!

Here us a 4th coming!
Rev 19
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

What a torpedo in the postribber ship!!!
A hole you can sail an aircraft carried through.

BUT NONE OF THOSE COMINGS IS THE RAPTURE. ( 5 comings)

The rapture is the gathering of the bride.!!!!

Mat 25, mat 24, 1 thes 4,acts1, and others.

Once the bride/ groom dimension is on the table.....the mystery begins to be revealed.

Omit the bride and we remain untaught.

Night and day difference.

One coming?????

At this late hour?????

At least look at the verses.

A 4th coming

 

[Truth7t7]

See again my posts on the TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT" in Lev23... and how Rev14:4 (re: the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel listed in chpt 7) parallels the wording of the SECOND of those TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT" in Lev23, namely, in v.17 where it says, "TWO loaves" and "baken WITH LEAVEN" (<--that ain't US / 'the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY');

--and how James 1:18 says "A KIND of firstfruit / A CERTAIN firstfruit" (meaning, MORE THAN ONE KIND);

--there is MORE THAN ONE "harvest" in nature and in Scripture

--the "WHEAT" is harvested by means of a "tribulum" (harvesting implement);

--the EARLIER "harvest" (earlier from "the WHEAT" harvest, of these TWO) is harvested by means of "tossing UP INTO THE AIR" (and "BLOWING" away the chaff)

--"the 144,000" are "FIRSTFRUIT" of the "WHEAT" harvest (... but we/'the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY' are NOT "the WHEAT" harvest)

--this also has to do with the CHRONOLOGY issues I've posted about... (one small example: Matt22:7 [re: the 70ad events] AND THEN Matt22:8 "THEN SAITH HE to his servants" which necessarily must have taken place FOLLOWING the 70ad events [i.e. 95ad's writing of "[The] Revelation" see 1:1 and its wording (also comp 7:3)])

(.../_disagree(/[ ,((])WITH_<u.

 

[Angela53510]

His "RETURN" (per the verses using this term) speaks of "His Second Coming TO THE EARTH [Rev19]" (no "pre-tribber" claims "the man of sin" ARRIVES *after* THAT )



You've not read what I've put in other posts regarding this:

--our Rapture *FIRST*

--"[rest / repose with us] IN THE REVELATION OF the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels INFLICTING VENGEANCE ON those who..." (this INCLUDES what 2Th2:10-12 says, "GOD SHALL SEND TO THEM great delusion, THAT they should believe the LIE / the FALSE / the pseudei..." over the course of SOME TIME, not merely "a split-second moment of time," nor merely "a singular 24-hr day"... but rather, in the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" ['avenge IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"] time-period that IS the 7-yr tribulation period unfolding upon the earth, and INVOLVING "the man of sin" IN HIS TIME)... where the rest of the passage goes on to speak of "future-to-THAT,-even" things...



Consider a post I made in the past, regarding this ^ (I'm referring to the fact that SCRIPTURE ITSELF has NO SUCH "rule" as you are presenting, which is a man-made construct/idea):

[quoting old posts]

That reminds me of those who say that the "occasion" in Matt26:6-13/Mk14:3-9/Jn12:1-8 and the one in Lk7:36-50 are one and the same simply because they BOTH use the phrase "an alabaster box of ointment" (and the events sound fairly similar).

https://www.gotquestions.org/alabaster-box.html
[one occasion or two separate occasions?]

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=an+alabaster+box+of+ointment&qs_version=KJV




Now, back to the "First Advent" issue I mentioned...

--Micah 5:2 speaks of the COMING FORTH at Bethlehem,

--and Zechariah 9:9 speaks of the COMING UNTO Jerusalem.

...which one of these two passages speak of it?

Or do both of them speak of His "First Advent" happenings?

--one being His "BIRTH" ['[out of you (Bethlehem/'House of Bread') unto Me] SHALL COME FORTH'];

--the other being what took place on the very day that the "69 Weeks" CONCLUDED [on Palm Sunday and what is commonly called 'the Triumphal Entry'],
when He SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing [parallel the wording in both Lk21:20,23 and Matt22:7 (re: the 70ad events)],
and when He DID the Zech9:9 thing ['thy King COMETH UNTO *thee* [speaking of Jerusalem / the city / 'city of Peace']'])



--Micah 5:2 -
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee SHALL HE COME FORTH unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."


--Zechariah 9:9 - [see also Lk19:41-44 and context]
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King COMETH UNTO thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."


Is only ONE of these ^ passage speaking of His "FIRST ADVENT," or are both of them about that (what we call His 'First Advent'), even though speaking of events some THIRTY YEARS APART!



(whereas other passages speak of events surrounding [what we commonly call] His "SECOND ADVENT," yet future--some of them also covering A SPANS OF TIME OF SOME DURATION, just as in His "First Advent" events did ).


[end quoting old posts]

Once again, I would add to a previous comment that your posts are practically impossible to read. You change fonts, bolding, underlining, etc.& I can't read it. I'm a speed reader, but that requires some kind of uniformity of the text.

I'd like to answer you back, discuss what you have said, but that will not happen as long as you have all these crazy, impossible to read, posts!

 

[Angela53510]

I remember that dude and his book.
That was 1988

The book was something to do with 88 reasons why the Rapture was coming in 1988. The only thing that happened that year was my daughter was born, snd we moved houses when I was 8 months pregnant.

Here is an analysis of why that book was wrong!

https://www.equip.org/article/88-reasons-what-went-wrong/

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

A 4th coming

--Micah 5:2 -

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee SHALL HE COME FORTH unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."


--Zechariah 9:9 - [see also Lk19:41-44 and context]

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King COMETH UNTO thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."



Are the above two passages speaking of "one coming," or "two comings" some thirty years apart?

Did both passages speak of events pertaining to what we commonly call His "First Advent," or not?

Are these two passages speaking of the SAME instance, setting, etc, in His "First Advent," or distinct instances?

If two distinct instances within what we call His "First Advent," would you say that the CONTEXTS determine the setting and location and purpose of each of these two distinct "come" words (the persons immediately involved, and so forth)?

Is there any verse saying specifically "First Advent" or "SECOND Advent"... or do we just determine which of these is being referred to by means of CONTEXT and other clues?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

(.../_disagree(/[ ,((])WITH_<u.

I can tell you've taken the time to examine the scriptures I supplied, thoroughly, in order to ascertain the "reasons" for my saying what I said in that post.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"

"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest

"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.
"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]

"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.

The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.

With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."

The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [TDW: I would say, "must precede the (7-yr) tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it, though I find that most ppl mis-label this also)]. And we have answered our questions again. [...]"

--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60

[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 ]


[end quoting; some bracketed inserts mine; parentheses original]



____________

[this also takes into consideration that 2Th2:2 reads, as most scholars agree, "day of the Lord" (and ITS "biblical" definition) rather than "day of Christ"]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure:

"But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period."

[end quoting]


____________

This sequence is repeated 3x in this context (and agrees with same sequence of all other related passages on this Subject).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

On the subject of the textual issues of Revelation 5:9 :

Post #64 - https://christianchat.com/threads/revelation-study.198143/post-4522228

 

[jb]

By anyone's standard of measure that's a lot of reasons!

https://lifecoach4god.life/2013/06/...etribulational-rapture-by-dr-john-f-walvoord/

But ALL untrue, for there is NO (secret) pre-tribulation advent and rapture!

The Lord Jesus's (Second, not a third) Coming and the Rapture occurs "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." Matt 24v29-31, 1Thess 4v13-5v6, 2Thess 2v1-4, 1Cor 15v50-54 (with Isaiah 25v6-9), Rev 14v14-16, 11v15-18.

The evil doctrine of a (secret) pre-tribulation advent and rapture is an evil seed put into the Church by the Devil (who is the father of lies) in the 1830's that it (the Church) would "supposedly" not suffer during the Great Tribulation but escape it, the result being that those who believe such a lie would not be spiritually prepared for the Great Tribulation so that when it comes they would backslide and go into apostasy. Matt 24v45-25v13, Luke 6v46-49.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But ALL untrue, for there is NO (secret) pre-tribulation advent and rapture!

The Lord Jesus's (Second, not a third) Coming and the Rapture occurs "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." Matt 24v29-31, 1Thess 4v13-5v6, 2Thess 2v1-4, 1Cor 15v50-54 (with Isaiah 25v6-9), Rev 14v14-16, 11v15-18.

Matthew 24:29-31 corresponds with Isaiah 27:12-13... strangely, you seem to have left that passage off, though having no problem mentioning Isaiah 25v6-9.

[and, as far as Isa25:8 goes... see my posts on the "THEN" word used in 1Cor15:24 "THEN the end"... which is a SEQUENCE word only, with NO time-element attached with it... so that vv.23-24 is speaking of SEQUENCE issues... IOW, "THEN the end" is NOT saying "Then IMMEDIATELY the end"... Also note the remainder of the context, speaking of the "last enemy destroyed" issue]

The evil doctrine of a (secret) pre-tribulation advent and rapture is an evil seed put into the Church by the Devil (who is the father of lies) in the 1830's that it (the Church) would "supposedly" not suffer during the Great Tribulation but escape it, the result being that those who believe such a lie would not be spiritually prepared for the Great Tribulation so that when it comes they would backslide and go into apostasy. Matt 24v45-25v13, Luke 6v46-49.

^ [re: the part I bolded] That idea has been debunked so many times, I'm surprised you are still using it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Over the course of my many years of discussing this Subject with folks, I find that most people do not actually have "textual reasons" for rejecting the idea of the "pre-trib rapture," but rather, have intense emotional reasons for rejecting it.


[and most of THAT ^ is due to their having been taught "pre-trib" in a VERY POOR, inadequate and incorrect manner... so that the individuals themselves are often not entirely to blame... but they're still stuck on that false idea of it, the way they (incorrectly) first learned it]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

GaryA said:
Relative to the time the words were written.

I am not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this - but, it presently does not seem to be a correct statement...

GaryA , I appreciate your "HONESTY" and "COURAGE" in pointing this out about yourself ^ in that post. = )


["LOVE" and "TRUTH" also! ]

I am not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this

All of us do this at some point, in the things we post!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

SEQUENCE in Paul's sentence:

1) "hee apostasia FIRST"

2) "and the man of sin BE REVEALED"


... this is stating that these TWO items are distinct, and that ONE ITEM takes place "FIRST" before the other.

 

[Runningman]

There IS NO "harvest" DURING the GT.

When you say 'harvest' - by definition - you are referring to a 'resurrection' - correct?

I think since some of the descriptions of the return of Jesus use different imagery to describe it that they think there are numerous different returns.

The problem with that is that when it says Jesus returns a lot of different things happen depending on which verse you read, but it never says He keeps leaving and coming back. As a result, I reject any assumption there are numerous comings of Christ. This single point alone is enough to fully undermine the pre-trib theology since it lacks required Biblical support.

My understanding is that no single verse is an exhaustive description of what happens when Jesus returns, but we can look at all of them and see.

The resurrection happens when Jesus returns, the dead in Christ rise first, those who are alive and remain are caught up in the air, the harvest of the wheat and tares occurs, and the elements are destroyed with fervent heat and loud bangs, and then there is a New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[cv5]

You misconstrue his point, hes not saying Paul is Post Trib, or that the Thessalonians were per se, hes saying the people Paul warned the Thessalonians about via their LIES were Post tribers. h-Here you go........

2 Thess 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away(DEPARTURE by the Church NOT from the faith) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

So, he is saying that those who MISLED the Thessalonians were Post Tribbers. At least that is the way I took it. We know Paul is a pre trib guy.

Yes correct. Honestly I just did not let the point sink in. Another poster corrected me on that matter earlier.

Very clearly the dialogue supports the pre-TRIB rapture.

 

[Runningman]

You misconstrue his point, hes not saying Paul is Post Trib, or that the Thessalonians were per se, hes saying the people Paul warned the Thessalonians about via their LIES were Post tribers. h-Here you go........

2 Thess 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away(DEPARTURE by the Church NOT from the faith) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

So, he is saying that those who MISLED the Thessalonians were Post Tribbers. At least that is the way I took it. We know Paul is a pre trib guy.

Paul took the position of Jesus Christ on when His return would be, which is "immediately after the tribulation of those days." Which is described in the preceding verses what we know to be the great tribulation, characterized by end times events. (Read Matthew 24)

The gathering of Jesus' elect by His angels occurs after the great tribulation. The rapture is conclusively post-tribulation by very sound reason and logic.