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

[TheDivineWatermark]

FreeGrace2 said:
And in v.3, the words "that DAY", cannot refer to the DofL. Because the words "that day" obviously refer to a specific DAY, not a lengthy time period, which is what the DofL is.

What you are suggesting is, that the false conveyors of v.2 could potentially have been saying any one of the following... (which one is more reasonable, do you think, given that "the day of the Lord" starts at the beginning of the Trib yrs, and continues through the entire MK age... as you well know):

--"the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]... the 452nd year, 4th month, 27th day of it! [*freak out right about now, ppl!!!*]"

--"the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]... the 444th year, 8th month, 12 day of it! [*freak out right about now, ppl!!!*]"

--"the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]... the very first day of the tribulation-period/trib-judgments [*freak out right about now, ppl!!!* Paul won't even hear about your freakings for another two weeks, let alone get a letter back to you for some time after that, but you know, it's really important that you 'freak out' right this second!!! THE MOMENT [/the very 24-hr day] that it STARTED!!!*]"

--"the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]... it STARTED at some point in the past and is continuing into the present, so that we're all presently IN and EXPERIENCING the tribulation judgments that the day of the Lord consists of [among other things] and that are freak-out worthy, man!! [*cue the shaken and troubled thoughts*]"

One more time: "that DAY" in v.3 refers to a specific day, not a lengthy period of time. So it refers back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord", which, btw, WILL occur on a specific day.

That's not consistent with the grammar showing in v.3a... (which verse, btw, does not have the word "day" in it, note the italics).

What you are doing is skipping clear back over and past v.2 (ignoring it, essentially) in order to grab v.1 to explain what v.3a is talking about ('that day will not... if..."). That's similar to the above examples, the top two that I hope you agree would be completely irrational and not at all fitting to the rest of the actual text that we have before us.

Don't do that.

Don't skip back over and past v.2 in order to ascertain what v.3a is speaking of!

To explain what v.3a is talking about ("that day will not... if..."), look at the immediately preceding verse to see what it was the false conveyors were claiming "IS HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... and then you can tell what Paul is saying "NOT" about in v.3a ("that day will not...")... and then what things must be in play before such a thing could be the case, spelled out in v.3b... one thing *FIRST* AND the man of sin be revealed...

Your explanation simply is not at all reasonable...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And v.1 connects 2 related and separate items/ideas. iow, Christ's Second Advent AND the rapture are 2 separate events, but occur together, with the Second Advent first, followed by the rapture.

I realize you were speaking with "BereanBride"... but I just wanted to point out that you are assuming that the word "parousia/presence" in this verse is speaking of His "MANIFESTATION [of His presence]" [/'OPENLY MANIFEST'] point in time (what we commonly call "His Second Advent"); rather than what it is speaking about, which is the event of "the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" where His presence will be when we [/the Church which is His body] are "caught up" in the "our episynagoges unto Him" event that this verse refers to.







Verse 1 indeed is speaking of things that occur together (at the same point in time--i.e. the point in time of our Rapture event).



BTW, verse 2 is not speaking of that.

IOW, the false conveyors were not communicating anything about our Rapture, or our Rapture point in time...

 

[Absolutely]

Rosemaryx said:
But are we not children of the Light ?
Is Jesus not talking about those who are in darkness ?

Correct on both.

Does that point to a secret rapture?

 

[Absolutely]

I realize you were speaking with "BereanBride"... but I just wanted to point out that you are assuming that the word "parousia/presence" in this verse is speaking of His "MANIFESTATION [of His presence]" [/'OPENLY MANIFEST'] point in time (what we commonly call "His Second Advent"); rather than what it is speaking about, which is the event of "the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" where His presence will be when we [/the Church which is His body] are "caught up" in the "our episynagoges unto Him" event that this verse refers to.







Verse 1 indeed is speaking of things that occur together (at the same point in time--i.e. the point in time of our Rapture event).



BTW, verse 2 is not speaking of that.

IOW, the false conveyors were not communicating anything about our Rapture, or our Rapture point in time...

Acts 1 is also NOT pointing to the second coming with millions of white horses blackening the sky.

Solid pretrib rapture

 

[cv5]

FreeGrace2 said:
And in v.3, the words "that DAY", cannot refer to the DofL. Because the words "that day" obviously refer to a specific DAY, not a lengthy time period, which is what the DofL is.

One more time: "that DAY" in v.3 refers to a specific day, not a lengthy period of time. So it refers back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord", which, btw, WILL occur on a specific day.

I think you had better type in the term "that Day" into the BlueLetterBible search bar. Filter for Old Testament Prophets. Take a look at the results.

The meaning is always the same and it's everywhere man. Of course Paul was aware of the prophetic implications Of this specific term.

 

[Runningman]

I'll wait for your interpretation of 2 Thess 2:1-3. Just those 3 verses.

It looks like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is saying that the day of Christ's return and our gathering to Him will occur after the falling away (apostasy) and the man of sin revealed. Two specific and distinct conditions must be met first before Christ returns.

I know some people are saying the falling away is actually a departure of the church. Even if we test that theory with the context then it still doesn't happen until the man of sin is revealed, too. So there is no departure of the church at least until verse 8 when it describes Jesus' arrival to destroy the man of sin claiming he is God.

Furthermore, it doesn't really make a lot of sense grammatically. If the word "falling away" is interpreted as a "departure of the church in a rapture" then the literal rendering of the verses would be something like: "our gathering to Him will not occur until we are gathered to Him." Which reveals nothing to enhance the main idea of the verses. Therefore it would be redundant and still doesn't place the gathering (rapture) before the man of sin is revealed.

I don't think these verses are rocket science. The plain reading makes it clear, at least to me, that it's a post-tribulation gathering of the church.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I know some people are saying the falling away is actually a departure of the church. Even if we test that theory with the context then it still doesn't happen until the man of sin is revealed, too.

The text literally states, "...if not shall have come THE Departure *FIRST* [ONE THING *FIRST* (i.e. "our Rapture" event)] AND [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."



(he is "revealed" at the START of the Trib years [not at its MIDDLE] / at the START of "the day of the Lord" time-period... Thus, when he is "revealed," that's also when "the day of the Lord" will indeed "BE PRESENT" in actuality [the Subject of v.2's false conveyors' purporting...])






So, yes, it completely "fits" what the text is telling us... and in the ORDER / SEQUENCE that the word "FIRST* applies to!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Furthermore, it doesn't really make a lot of sense grammatically. If the word "falling away" is interpreted as a "departure of the church in a rapture" then the literal rendering of the verses would be something like: "our gathering to Him will not occur until we are gathered to Him."

HOGWASH!

It wouldn't say that (as we've repeatedly pointed out).

It would say, INSTEAD of what you suggest,

"that day [the DOTL time-period of earthly-located JUDGMENTS unfolding, from v.2!] will NOT be present, if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE ["our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" noun-event from v.1 ('our episynagoges UNTO HIM')] *FIRST* AND the man of sin be revealed..."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"that day [from v.2!] will NOT be present, if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [from v.1] *FIRST* AND the man of sin be revealed..."




Paul repeats THIS SEQUENCE 3x in this CONTEXT (which agrees with the SAME SEQUENCE also in 1Th4 - 5, as well as all other passages covering this Subject)

 

[Runningman]

The text literally states, "...if not shall have come THE Departure *FIRST* [ONE THING *FIRST* (i.e. "our Rapture" event)] AND [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."



(he is "revealed" at the START of the Trib years [not at its MIDDLE] / at the START of "the day of the Lord" time-period... Thus, when he is "revealed," that's also when "the day of the Lord" will indeed "BE PRESENT" in actuality [the Subject of v.2's false conveyors' purporting...])






So, yes, it completely "fits" what the text is telling us... and in the ORDER / SEQUENCE that the word "FIRST* applies to!

If we take other verses into consideration then the man of sin isn't revealed until after the two witnesses are killed in the street. Per Revelation 11 they'll prophesy 1,260 days before the revealing of the beast in Revelation chapter 13. The beast will be allowed to do what he does for 42 months. That would place the revealing of the beast approximately mid-tribulation.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 says that when Jesus returns He'll destroy him. So that would place Jesus' return after the 42 months of the beast.

I don't think 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 means Jesus will return instantaneously as soon as it has been revealed to people who the man of sin is, but rather as soon as he is revealed you should be able to set a timer for 42 months and at the end of 42 months Jesus will return. That sounds like post-trib to me.

 

[Runningman]

HOGWASH!

It wouldn't say that (as we've repeatedly pointed out).

It would say, INSTEAD of what you suggest,

"that day [the DOTL time-period of earthly-located JUDGMENTS unfolding, from v.2!] will NOT be present, if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE ["our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" noun-event from v.1 ('our episynagoges UNTO HIM')] *FIRST* AND the man of sin be revealed..."

Calm down it's ok. I know you are very passionate about this topic and so am I. By the way, I smiled a little when i saw you say "HOGWASH!"

Let me ask you a different question:

Revelation 19:17-18
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

So are these literal birds or is this metaphorical language used to describe those rapture saints who meet Jesus in the clouds? Remember, after we meet the Lord in the air it doesn't actually say where we go after that.

The below verse says the armies which are in heaven follow the rider on the white horse. Obviously this is Jesus.

Revelation 19:14
14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

If we take other verses into consideration then the man of sin isn't revealed until after the two witnesses are killed in the street. Per Revelation 11 they'll prophesy 1,260 days before the revealing of the beast in Revelation chapter 13. The beast will be allowed to do what he does for 42 months. That would place the revealing of the beast approximately mid-tribulation.

For starters, no... The two witnesses are killed (thus having concluded their "1260 days") and then are raised to stand on their feet and ascend up into Heaven at the point in time surrounding the "6th Trumpet / 2nd Woe" (Rev11:14; Rev8:13b)... Whereas the MID-trib point is back at the "5th Trumpet / 1st Woe unto the earth" (Rev12:12; Rev9:1; Rev8:13b). So the "2Ws' 1260 days" STRADDLES the two halves... meaning, they are also present on the earth when he does his MID-trib thing that 2Th2:4 speaks of...

But THAT is not when the "whose COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / parousia]" (2Th2:9a) of the man of sin "IN HIS TIME" is... no... that's back at SEAL #1, parallel with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3] ARRIVAL of "the DOTL" time-period of JUDGMENTS unfolding upon the earth, correlating with what Jesus said about "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]," esp the first thing He mentioned, per Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE' ['a certain one' bringing deception!]" and which "beginning of birth PANGS" are EQUIVALENT to the "SEALS" of Rev6... so the FIRST ONE OF THOSE! (i.e. the rider on the white horse with a BOW<--"bow" often meaning "DECEPTION")... and equivalent ALSO to "the prince THAT SHALL COME" and does the "FOR ONE WEEK [7 years]" thing, in Dan9:27a (also, 1Jn2:18, "ye have heard that antichrist SHALL COME"... where the phrase "ye have heard" is commonly used in Scripture to refer to OT scriptural references, rather than "mere rumor" type things, as some incorrectly suppose regarding this verse/this phrase...).


So, no, I thoroughly disagree that he is "revealed" at the MID-trib point (42 mos remaining) when he does the "SITTETH" thing per 2Th2:4... Rather, when he does the 2Th2:9a thing instead, at the START of the 7 years, the "kick-off" to the DOTL earthly time-period (which INCLUDES the entire 7-yr trib... COMMENCING at SEAL #1)

 

[Mem]

The below verse says the armies which are in heaven follow the rider on the white horse. Obviously this is Jesus.

Revelation 19:14
14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

I believe also that this is spiritual sign language that is reflective of 2Cor 6:7, "in truth speech and in the power of God (white horses); with the weapons of righteousness (clothed in fine linen, white and clean) in the right hand and in the left:"

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@Runningman regarding your Q in Post #2906... I will just say, I believe "the wedding SUPPER of the Lamb" [located on the earth] of verse 9, and "the SUPPER of the great God" of verse 17[21c], are DISTINCT.

*WE* will be heading down to "the wedding SUPPER of the Lamb" (aka the inauguration of the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age), where "those having been INVITED" (aka the "guests [plural]"), who will have been being "INVITED" all throughout the entire 7-yr tribulation period on the earth, will STILL BE LOCATED [the "still-living" ones] upon His "RETURN" there Rev19 [TO THE EARTH] ("when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"... THEN the meal [G347], per Luke 12:36-37,38,40,42-44 and its parallel passage in Matt24:36-51... etc... ["the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" passages and parallels, and the "G347 MEAL" passages]); those will be "saints" (having come to faith IN / DURING / WITHIN the trib yrs [FOLLOWING "our Rapture"]) who will ENTER the MK age in their mortal bodies, capable of reproducing / bearing children)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

regarding your Q in Post #2906

Oops! Meant Post #2911 !

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

...what it boils down to, as far as I can tell anyway, is that the timing of these "SUPPERS" has no bearing on the timing of "our Rapture" which will have PRECEDED this point in the chronology, and we will be HEADING DOWN at that point... both "SUPPERS" commence at the CONCLUSION of the trib years, well-after "our Rapture" has taken place...

IOW, "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" is not the equivalent of the "the wedding SUPPER of the Lamb" event (earthly-located [i.e. the MK age]), see... (nor "the SUPPER of the great God," as I see it).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't think 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 means Jesus will return instantaneously as soon as it has been revealed to people who the man of sin is,

Right.

For one thing, there is indeed a SPANS OF TIME *between* what v.8a speaks of and what v.8b speaks of (tho you and I disagree on just "what length of time" that IS)... even just within ONE VERSE. lol



In the same way, there is a SPANS OF TIME between v.1's "the coming [/parousia - presence] of OUR Lord Jesus Christ and OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" (i.e. RAPTURE) and that of v.8b's "the MANIFESTATION of His presence [/parousia]" (when "EVERY eye shall see Him" ... which isn't what happens at the former [v.1] thing, see).

but rather as soon as he is revealed you should be able to set a timer for 42 months and at the end of 42 months Jesus will return. That sounds like post-trib to me.

Both of our views (yours and mine) hold that He will "RETURN" *after* the Trib years (i.e. POST-trib). I don't think that is in dispute. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out the "RETURN" passages speak ONLY of His Second Coming to the earth (Rev19):

--Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 (and parallels) "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"... THEN the meal [G347]

--Lk19:12,15,17,19 (and parallels)... "RETURN"... when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou authority over 10 CITIES... (or "5 CITIES")




...what IS in dispute is the timing of "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]"

 

[bobo32]

this is only an opinion but, the way I see it neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit are on earth during the great tribulation. We are in Christ when we accept Him as Savior and the Holy Spirit is in us. as God has already punished Christ for our sins and we received the Holy Spirit in us we can't be in the great tribulation because they aren't therefore pre-trib.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Acts 1 is also NOT pointing to the second coming with millions of white horses blackening the sky.

Solid pretrib rapture

I *disagree*... for reasons I've stated in past posts (which I won't go into, too much, here)... basically tho:


--Jesus' ascension in Acts 1 was His "VISIBLE" ascension, which will be LIKE He shall "SO COME IN LIKE MANNER as ye have SEEN Him going [/traveling] into Heaven," speaking of His "RETURN" to the earth point in time (Rev19), which will also be "VISIBLE" (Matt24:29-31, Rev1:7, etc)


--His EARLIER ascension (some "40 days" earlier, ON His Resurrection Day / ON Firstfruit, Lev23:10-12) was NOT "SEEN" by anyone, it was only TOLD to MM (Jn20:17) and she was instructed by Him to "SAY UNTO them" about it... which He later "upbraided [the 11] with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen" Mk16:14 (including MM who had conveyed the particular msg Jesus had give her to convey to them, per Jn20:17 "I [ACTIVE] ASCEND..."; we see that in Mk16:9-11, which "[they] believed not").



Some "40 days" separated these TWO events (the TWO ascensions of Jesus). One was NOT "SEEN" by anyone; the other (latter one) WAS VISIBLE (when He was "taken up" Ac1:11).

It doesn't have to have all the accompanying scenery in order to correlate, see...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Calm down it's ok. I know you are very passionate about this topic and so am I. By the way, I smiled a little when i saw you say "HOGWASH!"

I'm glad you smiled a little... ... coz it really is HILARIOUS the amount of times (hundreds??) that ppl have said what you've said (and been corrected by those of us *explaining it* as "THE Departure [/our Rapture]"), when you say:

"if... then the literal rendering of the verses would be something like: "our gathering to Him will not occur until we are gathered to Him."

... in fact, I'd almost be willing to bet that at some time in the not-too-distant-future, you will (like so many in the past) AGAIN REPEAT this faulty notion of "what it would [supposedly] be saying" ("if" what we've presented were the case, as you *incorrectly* have read what has been explained)... coz it happens over and over and over, even after it's been pointed out to folks... they come back with the SAME flawed "grasp" of this... What do you wanna bet you'll be expressing it that same incorrect way again, at some future point, and I'll have to come back to this Page and point this out to you *again*. LOL (I sure hope not... I really am hoping it will *STICK* this time, so that you don't continue to repeat that silly false notion about "what it would be saying," when that is completely NOT "what it would be saying" )