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

[randyk]

My point to the other poster was about spiritualizing Scripture, which is basically just making stuff up to prove what you believe.

For example, Matt 25 has a parable about 10 virgins and a wedding. The poster spiritualizes the parable into "proving" a pretrib rapture.

iow, spiritualizers equate what Scripture mentions to mean something totally unrelated to the text itself.

I've always been interested in WHY people believe what they believe. So I'm always looking for Scripture that actually says what they claim/believe to see if they have actual support for their belief.

What you just said is so important, and has been so important in my life! I believe God made this clear to me many years ago when I was having trouble with being confused about biblical statements.

God convicted me that I should ignore others, and just focus on what the black and white message in the Bible is. Some pretty outstanding Christians sometimes err in matters that aren't central to their ministry. But I should focus on what God is telling me in the clearest, most unambiguous way.

I'm not saying we should ignore commentators or those expert in these matters. I'm just saying that some pretty spiritual people can get outside of their area of expertise, and lead us astray. We need to be on guard against making people little gods.

So when I look for a teaching in the Bible on the endtimes, I look for the blueprint, the origin of the doctrine, and its development in several biblical authors. And I follow the black and white message that uses the same words consistently from one messenger to another. We get bored, and want a novel message, or prefer to avoid argument and try to find a middle ground.

Bad idea! We need to believe that God is saying in crystal clear terms. As Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't have a speech impediment. He doesn't even lisp. He spells out exactly what He wants us to know. We don't have to solve puzzles. When He wants to say something, He says it several times, and is quite blunt, and may even give several examples.

We shouldn't look for the weird isolated verses that we may take wrong. It's okay to try to figure them out. But the things we should focus on are the things God makes of a higher priority, by repeating them over and over. I can't say this enough.

Postrib is plainly taught in 2 Thes 2. Paul says that Christ can't come for the Church until the Antichrist is revealed, and destroyed. That is clear. And it originated, in its language, from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to destroy Antichrist. And this language is used consistently by all of the NT authors who dealt with it. It is the very language used in the book of Revelation.

Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand.

But if God shows something to you, you should believe it, and not doubt it. The Holy Spirit can be very, very clear. It's our doubt that makes things hard to decipher. Or perhaps we just pray and lose patience? Until we see clearly, we should be very humble about it!

 

[FreeGrace2]

What you just said is so important, and has been so important in my life! I believe God made this clear to me many years ago when I was having trouble with being confused about biblical statements.

God convicted me that I should ignore others, and just focus on what the black and white message in the Bible is. Some pretty outstanding Christians sometimes err in matters that aren't central to their ministry. But I should focus on what God is telling me in the clearest, most unambiguous way.

I'm not saying we should ignore commentators or those expert in these matters. I'm just saying that some pretty spiritual people can get outside of their area of expertise, and lead us astray. We need to be on guard against making people little gods.

So when I look for a teaching in the Bible on the endtimes, I look for the blueprint, the origin of the doctrine, and its development in several biblical authors. And I follow the black and white message that uses the same words consistently from one messenger to another. We get bored, and want a novel message, or prefer to avoid argument and try to find a middle ground.

Bad idea! We need to believe that God is saying in crystal clear terms. As Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't have a speech impediment. He doesn't even lisp. He spells out exactly what He wants us to know. We don't have to solve puzzles. When He wants to say something, He says it several times, and is quite blunt, and may even give several examples.

We shouldn't look for the weird isolated verses that we may take wrong. It's okay to try to figure them out. But the things we should focus on are the things God makes of a higher priority, by repeating them over and over. I can't say this enough.

Postrib is plainly taught in 2 Thes 2. Paul says that Christ can't come for the Church until the Antichrist is revealed, and destroyed. That is clear. And it originated, in its language, from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to destroy Antichrist. And this language is used consistently by all of the NT authors who dealt with it. It is the very language used in the book of Revelation.

Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand.

But if God shows something to you, you should believe it, and not doubt it. The Holy Spirit can be very, very clear. It's our doubt that makes things hard to decipher. Or perhaps we just pray and lose patience? Until we see clearly, we should be very humble about it!

Amen! Very well said.

 

[Absolutely]

What you just said is so important, and has been so important in my life! I believe God made this clear to me many years ago when I was having trouble with being confused about biblical statements.

God convicted me that I should ignore others, and just focus on what the black and white message in the Bible is. Some pretty outstanding Christians sometimes err in matters that aren't central to their ministry. But I should focus on what God is telling me in the clearest, most unambiguous way.

I'm not saying we should ignore commentators or those expert in these matters. I'm just saying that some pretty spiritual people can get outside of their area of expertise, and lead us astray. We need to be on guard against making people little gods.

So when I look for a teaching in the Bible on the endtimes, I look for the blueprint, the origin of the doctrine, and its development in several biblical authors. And I follow the black and white message that uses the same words consistently from one messenger to another. We get bored, and want a novel message, or prefer to avoid argument and try to find a middle ground.

Bad idea! We need to believe that God is saying in crystal clear terms. As Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't have a speech impediment. He doesn't even lisp. He spells out exactly what He wants us to know. We don't have to solve puzzles. When He wants to say something, He says it several times, and is quite blunt, and may even give several examples.

We shouldn't look for the weird isolated verses that we may take wrong. It's okay to try to figure them out. But the things we should focus on are the things God makes of a higher priority, by repeating them over and over. I can't say this enough.

Postrib is plainly taught in 2 Thes 2. Paul says that Christ can't come for the Church until the Antichrist is revealed, and destroyed. That is clear. And it originated, in its language, from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to destroy Antichrist. And this language is used consistently by all of the NT authors who dealt with it. It is the very language used in the book of Revelation.

Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand.

But if God shows something to you, you should believe it, and not doubt it. The Holy Spirit can be very, very clear. It's our doubt that makes things hard to decipher. Or perhaps we just pray and lose patience? Until we see clearly, we should be very humble about it!

I am pretribber

I have no problem with the ac revealed....then the rapture.

None

Ac revealed. The church recognizes him for who he is.
IOW revealed.
Then the pretrib rapture.

There is nothing there suggesting what you read into it.
You made all that up.
No promotion whatsoever of a postrib rapture.
None.
I can boldly include those verses and let the listener decide.
( either way it is read....it comes up in FAVOR of a pretrib rapture)

 

[Absolutely]

QUOTE
""Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand."""

Nope
They saw the truth that the early church was decieved by the easily misconstrued picture of the jews scattered and land taken (virtually wiped from the earth)

No reason at all to carry that false prism forward.
Israel becoming a nation and population returning has reset that dynamic.

Postrib rapture is easily debunked.
Not to mention the fact that pretrib rapture was actually found as doctrine around 300ad

So going with the crowd ( the postribers banner and core of its origin) is proven as faulty.

 

[Absolutely]

Quote
""... Paul says that Christ can't come for the Church until the Antichrist is revealed, and destroyed. That is clear. And it originated, in its language, from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to destroy Antichrist. And this language is used consistently by all of the NT authors who dealt with it. It is the very language used in the book of Revelation."""

Your post suggest "revealed" and "destroyed" happens simultaneously at the end of the gt.

You think the church is clueless?

That the bride of Christ is oblivious that the white horse rider with a bow and crown conquering like Napolean is not the ac?
Beheading believers by the millions and requiring a mark and worship is not the ac?

 

[Mem]

Correct. These "dead" are all unbelievers who have died up to the time of the first resurrection of believers only.


Sandwiched? No, it's just part of the whole context. And explains WHEN the first resurrection occurs; when Christ returns.

Yes, Its describing that point in time when: v.3 Satan is bound, v.4 saints come to life, and v.5 the rest remain dead... until the thousand years are complete.

Rev 20:5 - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
Rev 20:7 - When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison.

v.5 doesn't mean they join Satan in the battle of Gog and Magog when he is released. It simply means they will be brought to the GWT judgment per 20:11-15.

The window to edit had passed by the time I remembered to address vv. 11-15 indeterminate status as having been divided as precisely as might deem it absolutely accurate to be part of the preceding vision or might better have been included with that of Chapter 21 as a overview of an conclusion of the body of the Book of Revelation.

At the end of the 1,000 year reign, or near end, Satan is releasted and he goes out and deceives the nations once more.
20:8 - and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

For those who think mortal believers will enter the Millennium have a problem explaining v.8 and the fact that there will be a world wide rebellion against Christ.

9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

These verses show how the rebellion ends. And what immediately follows is the GWT judgment (second resurrection from 20:5).

I have still to determine whether the GWT judgment doesn't include these verses, considering the language used is similar to that of the two witnesses, and elders, who 'stand before the throne, day and night or continually. but notwithstanding the eventually falling, casting down, or what have you of the condemned.

You have a more healthy attitude than many posters. I too am persuaded by clear Scripture. Unfortunately, many posters simply ignore the verses that very plainly refute them.

If I stop wondering whether I'm wrong, then I've stopped learning about what might actually be right.

 

[Mem]

Interesting. I looked it up and you're not wrong about the the word left being able to be translated as forgiven. It actually seems to have various applications as evidenced by the numerous verses it is used in.

See Matt. 24:40, Romans 4:7, Hebrews 2:8, and Revelation 11:9 as some examples of various applications.

I think the Matthew 24 "one taken, another left" verses refer to the harvest of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13. The angels are the reapers, the earth is the field, the wheat and tares are people.

Correct. I just wanted to point out that it is at best an inconclusive claim regarding whether it is the wheat that are 'taken' and the tares 'left.' However, although this is most often presented conversely, it appears to me that the subject of the body of context appears to be, primarily, addressing the most adverse outcome.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I am pretribber

I have no problem with the ac revealed....then the rapture.

None

Ac revealed. The church recognizes him for who he is.
IOW revealed.
Then the pretrib rapture.

What verse or verses show Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers to heaven?

No promotion whatsoever of a postrib rapture.
None.[/QUOTE]
You keep avoiding 2 Thess 2:1.

Concerning the coming (Second Advent) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered (rapture) to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

I've asked before and am asking again: could you please quote the verse but put in your view of what the words "coming" and "gathered" mean, as I have.

Then I'll know more of your view. Thanks.

I can boldly include those verses and let the listener decide.

Please do. I'd love to see verses that have Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers to heaven. If there are any, I'll certainly believe you.

( either way it is read....it comes up in FAVOR of a pretrib rapture)

I am eager to see any verse that explains that resurrected and raptured believers are taken to heaven.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Postrib rapture is easily debunked.

The very best way is to take up my request regarding 2 Thess 2:1. Quote the verse but add in the parentheses what you believe the words "coming" and "gathered" mean, which will prove the verse isn't about the Second Advent.

Not to mention the fact that pretrib rapture was actually found as doctrine around 300ad

Well, exactly! It sure isn't found in Scripture, all of which was completed somewhere between 85-96 AD.

 

[Runningman]

Correct. I just wanted to point out that it is at best an inconclusive claim regarding whether it is the wheat that are 'taken' and the tares 'left.' However, although this is most often presented conversely, it appears to me that the subject of the body of context appears to be, primarily, addressing the most adverse outcome.

Jesus said when He returns one will be taken and another will be left. He compares His return to the days of Noah. In Matthew 13, tares are gathered first then the wheat.

When "one is taken and another left" occurs it might be more like witnessing an precedent punishment on wickedness. Something like watching billions of people struck down where they stand. Of course, this cannot happen pre-trib for numerous reasons.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Correct. These "dead" are all unbelievers who have died up to the time of the first resurrection of believers only.


Sandwiched? No, it's just part of the whole context. And explains WHEN the first resurrection occurs; when Christ returns.


Rev 20:5 - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
Rev 20:7 - When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison

The resurrection in Rev.20:4-6 is only one phase of the first resurrection, as there are stages to it. Many people err on this because they thing that the word "first" means "only." Every resurrection which takes place prior to the one at the end of the thousand years belongs to the first resurrection, as listed below:

* Jesus the first fruits of the first resurrection - 1 Corinthians 15:23

* The church at His appearing - 1 Corinthians 15:23 (Then those at His appearing)

* The Male Child/144,000 (changed immortal and glorified and caught up)

* The two witnesses - Revelation 11:11

* The Great Tribulation saints - Revelation 20:4-6

v.5 doesn't mean they join Satan in the battle of Gog and Magog when he is released. It simply means they will be brought to the GWT judgment per 20:11-15.

At the end of the 1,000 year reign, or near end, Satan is released and he goes out and deceives the nations once more.
20:8 - and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

For those who think mortal believers will enter the Millennium have a problem explaining v.8 and the fact that there will be a world wide rebellion against Christ.

I have no problem explaining v.8 at all. Here's the scripture:

"When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to assemble them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the seashore."

You would have a bigger problem explaining how Satan would be able to deceive those who are in their immortal and glorified bodies during the millennial kingdom. Those great tribulation saints who make it alive through the entire tribulation period, will enter into the millennial kingdom in their mortal bodies and will repopulate the earth. It is a great number of their offspring whom Satan will deceive after He is released from the abyss.

9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

These verses show how the rebellion ends. And what immediately follows is the GWT judgment (second resurrection from 20:5).

You have a more healthy attitude than many posters. I too am persuaded by clear Scripture. Unfortunately, many posters simply ignore the verses that very plainly refute them.

You have a more healthy attitude than many posters = your not contending against me with the real truth.

Neither the inhabitants marching across the breadth of the earth, nor how the rebellion ends, has any bearing on whether they are mortal or immortal. Here's a hint: Satan will not be able to deceive those who are already in their immortal and glorified bodies.

If you were persuaded by scripture, you would not be believing in the things that you have been posting.

 

[OldSage]

Correct. I just wanted to point out that it is at best an inconclusive claim regarding whether it is the wheat that are 'taken' and the tares 'left.' However, although this is most often presented conversely, it appears to me that the subject of the body of context appears to be, primarily, addressing the most adverse outcome.

I think the wheat and tares parable really refers to the end of the Old Covenant Israel (AD70) rather than 'the
end' .

 

[randyk]

I am pretribber

I have no problem with the ac revealed....then the rapture.

None

Ac revealed. The church recognizes him for who he is.
IOW revealed.
Then the pretrib rapture.

There is nothing there suggesting what you read into it.
You made all that up.
No promotion whatsoever of a postrib rapture.
None.
I can boldly include those verses and let the listener decide.
( either way it is read....it comes up in FAVOR of a pretrib rapture)

The problem with your position is that in the same place Paul says that the Antichrist will be revealed first Paul also says that Antichrist will be defeated first. In other words, both things happen--both the revelation of Antichrist and his destruction.

And this doctrine came to Paul by way of Dan 7, where the Son of Man is portrayed as coming only after the revelation and destruction of Antichrist. The Kingdom of Christ *follows* the destruction of Antichrist.

I did not make this up. I'm reading it in black and white, brother. Instead of being loyal to your traditional eschatology and Pretrib friends, why do you place your loyalty in the Scriptures?

2 Thes 2.3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Clearly, Paul is here talking about the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just about his revelation!

 

[Mem]

Jesus said when He returns one will be taken and another will be left. He compares His return to the days of Noah. In Matthew 13, tares are gathered first then the wheat.

When "one is taken and another left" occurs it might be more like witnessing an precedent punishment on wickedness. Something like watching billions of people struck down where they stand. Of course, this cannot happen pre-trib for numerous reasons.

The nomenclature employed, I think, has been affective in confusing the truth (which can too often be undifferentiated from facts) as it has been used to mislabel the respective direct objects; i.e., (great) tribulation faithful and *great) wrath faithless, are these the same event with only converse outcomes or do they have a separate timeline altogether? The Lord's imminent Presence is decisively within the latter, consequently, to deliver the faithful from their tribulation so, the concept of two (separate) groups of saints/faithful needs be adopted in order to contend with any one body concept. But, I can't wrap my understanding around one group being joined to Christ and the other being somehow disembodied? apart from being joined to the unfaithful harlot who is assigned to wrath.

 

[Mem]

I think the wheat and tares parable really refers to the end of the Old Covenant Israel (AD70) rather than 'the
end' .

This narrative would certainly fit well in that context, but I think that could also very well be a considered a microcosmic representation of 'the end.'

 

[ewq1938]

I noticed that the root for the word "left" is also translated as "forgiven"

Did you know that actually is a bad thing?

Lets first define forgive:

863

863 aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}

from 575 and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go);
TDNT - 1:509,88; v

AV - leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6,
misc 13; 146

1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all
mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute

"to send away"
"of a husband divorcing his wife"
"to expire"
"to disregard"
"neglect"
"keep no longer"
"to leave on dying"
"leave behind one"
"abandon, leave destitute"

Doesn't sound very good does it?

So, do YOU want to be "forgiven"? Of course not, at least not in the context of this particular Greek word. We want our SINS to be "forgiven". Any evil, wicked thing should be "forgiven", including Satan. To be forgiven is to be destroyed, erased, left behind, sent away etc etc.


Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.


We want our SINS to be forgiven, not us.


Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.


Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luke 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luke 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

Romans 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.



Interestingly enough, well not to me, but it might be interesting to many of you that this same Greek word translated "forgiven" is the same word used for those "left" in the field at the 7th trump. You also don't want to be "forgiven" or "left" in the field.


Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Or


Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other [forgiven, rejected, sent away].



Its perfectly ok to say "Please God, forgive me" in the English. I say it all the time because I need cleansing and forgiveness all the time. But, I posted this thread to shine light upon the actual Greek meaning of a certain word. Strictly speaking, God "forgives" a sin which means he takes it from us, leaving us sinless until the next time we sin. The sinner is guilty, not the sin. Sin is transgression of the law. Yet, according to the Greek sin is what is forgiven when we repent.


There are two Greek words that do mean to be "forgiven" as we commonly use it in the English:

Luke 6:37
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
KJV

630

630 apoluo {ap-ol-oo'-o}

from 575 and 3089;; v

AV - release 17, put away 14, send away 13, let go 13, set at liberty 2,
let depart 2, dismiss 2, misc 6; 69

1) to set free
2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)
2a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a
decisive answer
2b) to bid depart, send away
3) to let go free, release
3a) a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to
give him liberty to depart
3b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
3c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
3d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one's claim against
him, to remit his debt
4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The
wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.
5) to send one's self away, to depart



Eph 4:32
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
KJV

5483

5483 charizomai {khar-id'-zom-ahee}

middle voice from 5485; TDNT - 9:372,1298; v

AV - forgive 11, give 6, freely give 2, deliver 2, grant 1,
frankly forgive 1; 23

1) to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to,
gratify
1a) to show one's self gracious, kind, benevolent
1b) to grant forgiveness, to pardon
1c) to give graciously, give freely, bestow
1c1) to forgive
1c2) graciously to restore one to another
1c3) to preserve for one a person in peril

 

[ewq1938]

You make a lot of stupid statements EWQ. I am flagging them from now on.

Reported to the mods.

 

[OldSage]

Reported to the mods.

You make yourself look bad with this behaviour EWQ.
As I said all along, be honest and truthful, and stick to the points being raised, and you'll be fine.

 

[Mem]

Did you know that actually is a bad thing?

Lets first define forgive:

863

863 aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}

from 575 and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go);
TDNT - 1:509,88; v

AV - leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6,
misc 13; 146

1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all
mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute

"to send away"
"of a husband divorcing his wife"
"to expire"
"to disregard"
"neglect"
"keep no longer"
"to leave on dying"
"leave behind one"
"abandon, leave destitute"

Doesn't sound very good does it?

So, do YOU want to be "forgiven"? Of course not, at least not in the context of this particular Greek word. We want our SINS to be "forgiven". Any evil, wicked thing should be "forgiven", including Satan. To be forgiven is to be destroyed, erased, left behind, sent away etc etc.


Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.


We want our SINS to be forgiven, not us.


Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.


Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luke 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luke 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

Romans 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.



Interestingly enough, well not to me, but it might be interesting to many of you that this same Greek word translated "forgiven" is the same word used for those "left" in the field at the 7th trump. You also don't want to be "forgiven" or "left" in the field.


Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Or


Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other [forgiven, rejected, sent away].



Its perfectly ok to say "Please God, forgive me" in the English. I say it all the time because I need cleansing and forgiveness all the time. But, I posted this thread to shine light upon the actual Greek meaning of a certain word. Strictly speaking, God "forgives" a sin which means he takes it from us, leaving us sinless until the next time we sin. The sinner is guilty, not the sin. Sin is transgression of the law. Yet, according to the Greek sin is what is forgiven when we repent.


There are two Greek words that do mean to be "forgiven" as we commonly use it in the English:

Luke 6:37
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
KJV

630

630 apoluo {ap-ol-oo'-o}

from 575 and 3089;; v

AV - release 17, put away 14, send away 13, let go 13, set at liberty 2,
let depart 2, dismiss 2, misc 6; 69

1) to set free
2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)
2a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a
decisive answer
2b) to bid depart, send away
3) to let go free, release
3a) a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to
give him liberty to depart
3b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
3c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
3d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one's claim against
him, to remit his debt
4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The
wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.
5) to send one's self away, to depart



Eph 4:32
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
KJV

5483

5483 charizomai {khar-id'-zom-ahee}

middle voice from 5485; TDNT - 9:372,1298; v

AV - forgive 11, give 6, freely give 2, deliver 2, grant 1,
frankly forgive 1; 23

1) to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to,
gratify
1a) to show one's self gracious, kind, benevolent
1b) to grant forgiveness, to pardon
1c) to give graciously, give freely, bestow
1c1) to forgive
1c2) graciously to restore one to another
1c3) to preserve for one a person in peril

In the context of the reception of God's wrath, yes, I'd prefer to be forgiven.

 

[OldSage]

This narrative would certainly fit well in that context, but I think that could also very well be a considered a microcosmic representation of 'the end.'

Well it's a reasonable idea. I don't know.
Romans 2 is a good place to see the two periods of wrath and judgment (and the two glorifications of the Saints) clearly demarcated:

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Clearly I am both 'post' and 'pre-trib'. I believe the Church is raptured after the great tribulation of the Jews, but before the tribulation of judgment on the earth.
I guess therefore you could even that say I am mitrib - there , all bases covered