Pre-, Mid-, Post-, or Pan-?
ecently, Brandon asked on his blog for feedback on whether or not we, his readers, felt that the Bible made a distinction between the rapture of the Church and the second coming of Christ. His post was appropriately entitled, “I’m opening a can of worms…want some?”
Since this blog has demonstrated time and time again how much I enjoy the taste of megadriles, I figured I would bite. 
Now, I have to say that, by and large, I believe eschatology is something that should not in any way, shape, or form divide us as believers. It saddens me to see rhetoric in different camps making their viewpoint out to be the only possible interpretation of Scripture that is true to Scripture.
I also realize that many of my readers differ with me on this, and I do not see that as a problem. It’s fun to talk about, but this is not at all an issue to die on a hill for.
Several years ago, I had a conversation with someone who answered the question about the relationship between the rapture and the tribulation by quipping, “It would be nice if it’s pre-trib, I hope it’s no later than mid-trib, but I’m prepared if it’s post-trib!” And, then, of course, you have the comments on Brandon’s post, in which Alan Knox said that he’s a “pan-tribber”, in the sense that “it will all pan out in the end.”
Well, the reality is, it will pan out in the end. And there will be a point in time when the question is finally answered for good. But until then, all we have is the ability to deduce some ideas from what’s been revealed, and come up with reasonable conclusions. None of those conclusions, however, should be held to so strongly that we forget they are just deductions.
With that being said, I thought I would take a few moments here on my blog to share some of the reasons I switched from a pre-trib view to a post-trib view several years ago.
I had been challenged by someone to back up my pre-trib assertions. Specifically, I had made a comment that the rapture and the second coming of Christ were two different events. The person who challenged me asked me why I thought they were two different events. I responded with one of the main elements of pre-trib defense: the belief that no prophecy needs to be fulfilled in order for the rapture to take place. Therefore, the rapture is the next event on “God’s calendar”, so to speak, and must happen before the tribulation.
The response to this was to ask me to defend that from Scripture. I said that it had been a while since I had studied about it, and I would have to search for it and get back to them. (Any of my readers are welcome to prove it from Scripture for me, if they’d like to.)
As of this point, I have not found it. Within a couple of days and some sleepless nights trying desperately to find what I believed was in the Bible, I realized that not only had I not found it, but I had found other verses that seemed to actually indicate quite a different idea.
Allow me to start first of all by sharing what I found wrong with the key proof-texts I had always held to for a pre-trib rapture:
- 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 — this “classic” pre-trib proof-text doesn’t mention anything about the timing of the rapture with relation to the tribulation. It merely talks about how we will meet Christ when He appears in the clouds. Not only does it not specifically refer to a timing with regard to the tribulation, but it also goes on in the next chapter (1 Thess 5:4) to show that believers actually will be quite aware of when the rapture will take place. This was a far cry from the “secret rapture” idea that I had held to for so long.
- John 14:3 — Jesus says that if He goes, He will come again and receive us unto Himself, that where He is, we may be also. Technically speaking, Jesus does not say that He will come and get us and take us to heaven. Rather, He just says that He will come and we will be with Him wherever He is.
- Titus 2:13 — the “blessed hope” and “the appearing” are said by many to be two separate things. Therefore, the blessed hope must refer to the rapture. However, there are a couple of problems with this interpretation. One is that the grammar need not force two separate events. The Greek conjunction kai (translated as “and”) can also be translated as “even”. Therefore, a legitimate translation could be “the blessed hope, even the appearing”. In this sense, “the appearing” would be an amplification of what the blessed hope is, not a separate event from it. Additionally, “blessed hope” is not an event, but rather a description of an event. I believe that this lends more weight to the “and” being understood as an amplification of the meaning.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 — It is often stated that verse 1’s use of “the coming…and our gathering to Him” again refer to two separate events. However, problems definitely abound here. First of all, the same argument I used for Titus 2:13 could apply here. This need not be two separate events grammatically. Furthermore, the order of events (the “coming” and then “our gathering”) would seem backwards if Paul were trying to explain chronology of events here. Further still, Paul then goes on to explain in great detail how the “Day of the Lord” will not come until after the revelation of the “man of lawlessness”, the apostasy, etc. All of this focus seems rather strange if he was merely trying to assure them that they would not go through the tribulation.
In addition to finding the above difficulties with verses that were so often used in a defense of the pre-trib position, I came across some other things that caused me to change my tune completely.
It is often said that there are no “slam dunk” verses for any of the positions on timing of the rapture. In some sense, this is true.
However, there is one passage that, in my opinion, comes as close as a “slam dunk” for the post-trib position as one could come without a verse coming right out and saying “The rapture will occur after the tribulation”!
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 — there are a couple of key things that I discovered in this passage that kept me from seeing the rapture and the second coming as two separate events.
- Paul is talking about the “relief” that will come to those who are enduring persecution for the sake of Christ. In verses 8 and 9, he says that relief will come “when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven…dealing out retribution to those who do not know God….” If the relief came seven years earlier, then Paul would not be able to say that the relief would come when Jesus dealt with the world in judgment.
- It is stated here that Jesus “will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire”. This sounds like the “second coming” to me.
- Verse 10 also states that it is on the day of judgment for the unbeliever that Jesus is “glorified in His saints…and…marveled at among all who have believed….”
There are also some similarities that I noticed between the description in Matthew 24:30-31 (referred to as M below) of what is always assumed to be the “second coming” and the description of the rapture in 1 Thess 4:16-17 (referred to as T below).
Consider this:
- M says that the “Son of Man [will be] coming on the clouds of the sky” and T says that “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven”
- M mentions Jesus sending forth “His angels” and T references “the voice of the archangel”. (By the way, the “shout” in T appears to be the voice of the archangel, not Jesus.)
- M mentions “a great trumpet” and T references “the trumpet of God”
- M mentions that His angels “will gather together His elect” and T says that we “will be caught up together with them”
I think it’s quite fair to say that Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 could very easily be referring to the same event. Now, notice in Matthew 24:29 that the events of 30 and 31 will happen “immediately after the tribulation of those days”. This lines up with Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2 which I’ve already referenced above, saying that the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him cannot happen until events normally associated with the tribulation (revelation of the antichrist, etc.).
This is just a brief glance at some of the reasons I have adopted a post-trib view. Again, I recognize that many of my readers may (and probably will) differ with me. I know of some for sure (*cough*Gordon Cloud*cough*) 
I welcome the differing opinions. And if I have erred in any of my explanations above, I hope that there will be corrections offered!
In this post, I have not attempted to answer some of the arguments made by some vocal pre-trib proponents (a well-known co-author of a well-known series of fictional accounts of a pre-trib rapture, for example!), such as how a post-trib rapture seems silly because it’s like a quick elevator ride up and back down, or how only the pre-trib position encourages holy living and evangelism.
I have not addressed these here because I wanted to actually deal with Scriptural reasonings for my position. If those straw men appear in the comments section, however, I will write another post to respond to them.
Until next time,
steve
March 26th, 2007 11:25
Steve,
Completely off subject… which is okay since it will all pan out in the end, as you said.
I think Paul had a copy of Matthew’s Gospel. Thessalonians is not the only letter with connections. 1 Corinthians also has several connections to Matthew’s Gospel. Of course, if that is true, that completely changes the critical view of the dating of the Gospel.
Okay… pardon the interruption… now, someone please comment about the rapture before we all get “caught up”.
-Alan
March 26th, 2007 14:55
Steve, if I didn’t know better, I would think that you live to pick theological fights with me.
Let me ask you the following question:
Do you take the description given in Revelation to be a literal account of the Great Tribulation?
Of course we could just ask the previous commenter, I’m sure he could tell us when the rapture will take place. (Where do these guys come from?)
[Edit: I decided to remove “the previous commenter” that Gordon referenced, because the comment was spam and linked to some very inappropriate things.]
March 26th, 2007 17:43
My introduction to escatology was pretrib/premil. in nature. There were always a few things that didn’t seem quite right though. For a number of years I just kind of “accepted” those things - by faith, if you will. I have since been on a journey of evaluation and reevaluation. Personally I would have to say I now lean more toward the partial preterist view. Granted, there are a few things that I may not understand fully but I keep looking. There do seem to be fewer issues which require “bending to fit and painting to match.” with this paradigm. I do agree, we truly will know in the end.
Great topic! I’m sure we’ll have more fun.
-marty
March 26th, 2007 19:05
Steve,
You’ve assumed the premillennial position in asking your question about the timing of the “rapture.” Personally, I’m not sure that I can even choose between premillennial, postmillennial or amillennial.
I like the description by N. T. Wright. He says that the statements in the Bible about the end times are “signpost pointing into a fog.” We have some information, but it is very limited.
I agree with you that it is sad for Christians to divide over eschatology.
Rod
March 26th, 2007 19:40
I finally am home for the evening and able to sit down at a computer for the first time since these comments came in. However, I’m not feeling very well tonight, so I’ll likely just respond to these and then check in later this evening, or even wait until the morning to respond to any follow-ups or other comments that come in. I’m sorry in advance for that.
Alan, interesting hypothesis about Paul having a copy of Matthew’s gospel. Never heard that before. What are the implications of that theory?
Gordon, hope you don’t mind me picking on you, bro.
I just happened to re-read a comment of yours from January where you had said something about “when Christ comes back (before the tribulation)” very tongue-in-cheek, so I figured I’d poke back 
With regard to your serious question, I actually have been leaning toward a partial preterist view of Revelation, like marty mentioned in his comment. But even with a futurist view of Revelation, I still see issues with the pre-trib position.
The arguments in favor of the pre-trib in the book of Revelation are pretty weak, in my opinion. Not completely wrong out of hand, but weak. Like Rev 4:1 being symbolic of the rapture? For being the school of thought that prides itself (for some, quite literally) on being the most “literal”, I find it fascinating that they then interpret 4:1 symbolically!
We can discuss Revelation more, if you want, but I sense you have a follow-up question…
marty, I find the partial preterist view to be exactly what you said — less pieces to bend and stretch.
Rod, N T Wright is rather wise in this regard. However, I think there’s more than we sometimes realize in the Scripture about the end times. Again, I’m not willing to give my life for a particular viewpoint, but I think that perhaps Wright might be dimissing it a bit too easily.
Having said that, I’m not fully convinced of a pre-mil position. I’m not sure that the question of the rapture has to assume a pre-mil position, does it? Could I not be post-mil or a-mil and still believe in a literal second coming during which we are caught up to meet Christ in the air as he descends to judge the wicked?
This is why I reject a full preterist view. I believe that Scripture is at least quite clear about a literal return of Jesus to the earth.
Or am I missing some major element of post- or a- that would hinder that?
March 26th, 2007 22:17
Steve,
First, I agree that there are some scriptural weaknesses with “the belief that no prophecy needs to be fulfilled in order for the rapture to take place. Therefore, the rapture is the next event on “God’s calendar”, so to speak, and must happen before the tribulation.” Matthew 24:14 “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” If I understand this verse correctly, that would be a prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled.
All of Mathew 24 is basically a question the disciples asked in vs. 3”…Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Jesus’ response to that question is everything He said from vs. 4 to the end of chapter 24 and even through chapter 25. After He shares with the disciples what these signs are, He goes on to say 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Something else I find interesting is that Revelation chapter 6 parallels Jesus’ description of the signs of His return and the gathering of the elect very closely. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 24 deals with the earthly vantage point of what to expect prior to His return happens. Revelation 6 and 7 give us vantage point from heaven of the tribulation and the rapture.
There is also the “argument” within the pre-trib school of thought that states that we are not appointed unto God’s wrath. The idea being that we couldn’t possibly be here for the events Jesus describes in Matt 24. I agree with the fact that, as Christians, we are not appointed unto God’s wrath, (1 Thes. 1:10” and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. And 1 Thes. 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,) but I question whether or not the events in Matthew 24 are indeed God’s wrath or judgment. If the correlation between Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 can be made, then I believe that Revelation gives us an answer to that question. Revelation 6:16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
Alan, or anyone else who has a better understanding of the Greek, is “has come” in Rev. 6:17 used in an impending sense? From what I can see it is, but I could be mistaken.
I’m making a bigger point but I want to wait for more feedback.
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 27th, 2007 01:10
I can see how parallels exist with Matt 24 and Rev 6, however, Matt 24 points out a pretty clear “time text” in verse 34 of Matthew 24 “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” This always bothered me in my PreTrib days but no more. It would be extremely unnatural for Jesus to use the phrase “this generation” and not mean the generation to which he was speaking at the time. It would have been far more natural for him to say “that generation.” If you look at all of the occurrence of “this generation” in the NT it always refers to the current generation to who Jesus was speaking. Why should we complicate this only this one time? There is no precedent for it. The only reason to make it mean some distant generation is to fix (bend to fit, paint to match) a particular escatalogical view. Therefore, I think that if indeed Rev 6 is a parallel to Matt 24 then it took place between the time of Jesus’ death/resurrection and the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.
Thoughts?
March 27th, 2007 09:12
Marty,
Good points. Are you talking about the destruction of the temple in 70AD or of Jesus’ return? Is it possible that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here when He says, this generation?
The main problem that I have with the conclusion that this took place in 70AD is that fact that Jesus has yet to return. Wasn’t that the question that initiated this text? “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” If Jesus were speaking to a group of non-Christians I believe that He would have used the term, “that generation”…of course that is a huge supposition on my part. But it does make sense given the fact that He is speaking to the first generation of “the church age”.
Sorry, I hope this rabble on my part makes sense…I’m rushed for time this morning.
Thanks and be blessed…
Brandon
March 27th, 2007 11:58
Steve, as with most theological discussions, this is probably going to come down to a matter of hermeneutics.
I take a literal view of Revelation. I realize of course that it does use some symbols in a prophetic sense, but I believe that the events it describes are real in a logical, consistent time frame. I think we have to ’splain away a lot of scripture to interpret it otherwise.
That position causes me to have a couple of questions/thoughts that can only be satisfied by a pre-trib position.
1. If the events in Revelation are to be taken literally, and the return of Christ is post-trib, (i.e. the rapture and the Second Coming are synonymous), then it would be possible to pinpoint the time of the rapture. We know what Jesus had to say about this, that even He didn’t know the hour of His return.
2. It seems according to Revelation, that a person who receives the mark of the beast cannot be saved. This would add an element of works to salvation that is obviously not a part of God’s plan in this dispensation.
I will stipulate that the texts to which you refer do not clearly state that the rapture is pre-trib, but neither do they preclude it. These points I have mentioned, however, lead me to accept the pre-trib position.
March 27th, 2007 12:18
Gordon, just out of curiosity, how do the 2 Thessalonians passages (2 Thess 1:8 and 2 Thess 2) not preclude a pre-trib rapture?
With regard to the two points you made:
1. The comment Jesus made was with regard to the Second Coming, or else one must twist Matthew 24 around a bit since he seems to be describing events related to what we call the tribulation. So whatever Jesus meant by not knowing the hour can’t easily be ascribed to the rapture (although it frequently is).
Additionally, Jesus definitely gives his disciples things to watch for (cf. 1 Thess 5 where Paul says that it won’t take us by surprise). I don’t think that not knowing the hour means that we won’t be fully aware of how close the time is.
2. I’m not sure I understand the connection between receiving the mark of the beast and “add[ing] an element of works to salvation”. Could you elaborate on that? Is it then your position that no one can be saved in the tribulation? Or that salvation in the tribulation includes an element of works?
I will give you points for bringing up an argument (the mark = works-based salvation) that I don’t recall ever seeing before!
March 27th, 2007 12:45
Steve, if II Thess. 1 and 2 are referring to the Second Coming, then it still does not preclude a pre-trib rapture. It refers to the “pulling back” if you will of the Holy Spirit as well as the rise of the anti-Christ before the event takes place. This simply places the Second Coming at the end of the Great Tribulation (which I think we all would agree upon).
After further thought, I probably did misapply Matthew 24 (I’ve probably been reading too many “Left Behind” books, hehehe). It does seem to be speaking of the Second Coming.
I do believe that people will be saved in the GT (at least 144,000 of them
). I believe they will be saved by faith in Christ just as we are. However, those who take the mark of the beast will be given “strong delusion that they might believe a lie” and will not have the capacity for faith. This seems to add an element to salvation that is not currently a factor.
How many points do I need to win?
March 27th, 2007 12:57
Gordon, I don’t believe that II Thess 1 and II Thess 2 can only be referring to the Second Coming, but includes the rapture as well. That is why I made the point in the post about II Thess 1:8 talking about the “relief” given to “us” on the same day that Christ returns to judge.
The pre-trib position says that Jesus comes back once only to rapture the Church, and then comes again (the Third Coming?? hehe) to judge the wicked.
In II Thess 2, Paul begins by saying that he wants people to be clear about Christ’s coming “and our being gathered to Him” — is that not the rapture? And then he says that the tribulation must take place.
I’m not sure I get what you’re saying about the “strong delusion” adding any element to salvation that is not currently a factor. According to Romans 1:18-32, that same result (a rejection of Christ which God then treats as final) seems to be possible in this day, too.
I’m just not seeing how your point about the mark of the beast precludes the idea that we are still here and meet Christ in the air when He returns to judge.
You still are lacking a few points to win
hehe Although I’ll give you more points still for humbly retracting your use of Matt 24!! 
March 27th, 2007 13:11
As I said, Steve, this is probably going to come down to a matter of hermeneutics.
All I can say is, if you really want to go through the GT, be my guest!
March 27th, 2007 14:15
An elegant evasion, my dear friend
But you can look at it this way, when it all does “pan out”, between your viewpoint and mine, I’m the only one in a position to be pleasantly surprised if I’m wrong!
March 27th, 2007 14:20
Hey, at least I am hoping for the best!
March 27th, 2007 14:26
Steve,
I think you should finally come out of the closet and admit that you have converted to the “pan-trib” position.
By the way, I am enjoying the conversation. I’m trying to talk Lew into joining in, because he cares about this stuff much more than I do. I personally like the N.T. Wright quote…
-Alan
March 27th, 2007 23:08
Gordon and Steve-
You guys must live in front of your computers!
In the interest of cutting to the chase, someone please explain the belief that God will spare us from tribulation. This seems to be a predominantly western concept. I do see plenty of scripture that tells us that God will spare us from his wrath…but tribulation? If that’s in the Bible I’m missing it. There is also the overall “theme” in scripture of God delivering his people through trials rather than from them.
Also- Being able to interpret the signs in order to know the approximate time of Jesus’ return/the rapture is very different from knowing the day or the hour. I do agree, we cannot pinpoint the day or hour, but Jesus said in Matt 24:32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” What does this text mean if it doesn’t mean that this is how we can know his return is near?
Again I ask, is the tribulation the outpouring of God’s wrath on man or is it not? I believe that Revelation gives a clear picture that it is not. From Revelation 8:5 on you see the wrath of God being poured out on the earth and it’s inhabitants. (hail mixed with fire and blood, 1/3 of the earth, 1/3 of the trees, all the grass are burned…that’s the wrath of God.) The idea that being persecuted for our faith is somehow God’s wrath doesn’t compare to the description of the judgements that begin in Revelation 8.
Incidentally, these judgements or acts of wrath come right after the rapture of the church and the scene in heaven that follows which is described in Revelation 7:8-17.
Does any of this make sense to anyone besides me?
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 27th, 2007 23:50
Brandon, I am primarily responsible for homeschooling my sons during the early part of the day. While they are working on their assignments it does allow me a little time to participate in such intellectually stimulating discussions.
When you speak of God sparing us from tribulation, are you speaking generally or specifically of the Great Tribulation?
I believe that Christians will endure tribulation in a general sense, but I think we will be gone during the seven years of Great Tribulation.
And yes, I do believe we can understand that the coming of Christ is near even if we don’t know the exact minute. I personally believe it will happen in our lifetime. But, then, so did the writers of the NT.
March 28th, 2007 03:14
Brandon,
I too am amazed at the quickness with which some are able to respond! I’ve wanted to get back to the question(s) you raised in response to my last post so here goes.
“Are you talking about the destruction of the temple in 70AD or of Jesus’ return? Is it possible that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here when He says, this generation?”
I think the answer to this is actually two-fold (this is a key difference between the full-preterist view and the partial-preterist view.
The full-preterist believes the return of Christ fully occurred in AD 70, in judgment and bodily. I don’t believe this is true. Partial-preterist hold that Jesus returned in judgment in AD 70 culminating the “Jewish age.” His return bodily still is future at the final judgment of all things. He returns at this point the rapture/resurrection occurs and all are judged at the last day. This seems to me to be very plausable.
I don’t believe he’s speaking metaphorically about “this generation”, I believe that was literal and was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.
“The main problem that I have with the conclusion that this took place in 70AD is that fact that Jesus has yet to return.”
That’s addressed above as well.
Wasn’t that the question that initiated this text? “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” If Jesus were speaking to a group of non-Christians I believe that He would have used the term, “that generation”…of course that is a huge supposition on my part. But it does make sense given the fact that He is speaking to the first generation of “the church age”.
When using the simple, straight forward meaning of the words, without putting any eschatalogical twist on them, I can’t see how “this generation” means anything other than the generation to whom he was speaking. Again, that’s the meaning every other time the phrase is used in the NT.
Hope this is clear, it’s kinda late and my brain is saying “sleep…”
God bless!
-marty
March 28th, 2007 10:56
Brandon, I was home sick yesterday (as I am again today), which is the only reason I was able to respond as quickly as I did to Gordon. Usually, once I’m at the University for work, I’m unable to get to a computer to do much more than read the comments which have come in, and often not even that.
So, are you espousing a mid-trib rapture position here? I am not certain how you see the rapture in Rev 7, unless you’re talking about the reference to “those who came out of the great tribulation”. Is that what you’re seeing?
marty, ditto to you as to how I am able to respond so fast sometimes!
I’m still waiting for someone to challenge the points I made about 2 Thess 1:8. I’m having trouble seeing how a literal hermeneutic would not see the rapture and the second coming as being two aspects of one event at the same time.
It may, as Gordon has said, come down to hermeneutics, but what about my hermeneutic is wrong?
March 28th, 2007 11:46
Steve, I’m not necessarily saying your hermeneutic is wrong. It’s simply a matter of the one we choose to employ will dictate how we interpret the scripture.
Please don’t misunderstand. I don’t believe there is that much latitude in all matters of doctrine, but as I see it, this is not exactly a cardinal doctrine we are discussing here.
Hope you get to feeling better.
March 28th, 2007 12:59
Steve,
I think you’re correct in your assessment that these verses are referring to both, the Second Coming& Rapture(resurrection of the living).
I think it would be really hard to read the “end times” verses with no preconcieved ideas and come up with the dichotomy of “appearings”. It’s difficult to “read out” without “reading in!”
-marty
March 28th, 2007 22:06
Gordon, you are absolutely right that this is not a cardinal doctrine. Which is part of the reason I wanted to discuss it, thinking that it wouldn’t cause some of the tension that some previous posts have caused.
What I find increasingly ironic is that the pre-trib position is often claimed by its adherents to be the only “literal” interpretation of Scripture. This is one of the many “straw men” that I believe the pre-trib position puts forth.
Is it your position with your reference to hermeneutics, that my interpretation of 2 Thess 1:8 is not a literal interpretation?
I guess what I’ve been trying to get you to articulate is what hermeneutic you think I’m using, and which one you’re using?
Change my previous question to, “what about my hermeneutic is different from yours?”
March 28th, 2007 22:07
marty, exactly. I was trying to prove the pre-trib position from the Scripture, and failed miserably!
March 29th, 2007 10:36
Gordon,
I’m not saying that God will spare us from tribulation at all, but I am saying that God will spare us from His wrath/judgement. What would you see as the distinction between the tribulation and the great tribulation?
Marty,
I’m curious about the return of Christ that you’re talking about in 70AD when the destruction of the temple occurred. In that context I can see the literal interpretation of “this generation”. Are you saying that all of the events in Matthew 24 have already taken place? Sorry, I can be a bit slow.
Steve,
I hope you’re feeling better.
No, I don’t see the rapture and the return of Christ (which I believe are one in the same) from a mid-trib standpoint. The reason I said that I see what I believe to be the rapture of the Church in Revelation 7 starts in Revelation 6:9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls …11…given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer…
Contrast that with the way the people are described in Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; (there’s not only a positional difference, but a physical difference as well)
I find it interesting that these are described as souls beneath the altar in chapter 6. This is prior to the events in Rev 6:12-14 where the sign of Christ’s return (Matt 24:29;Isaiah 13:10-13;Joel 2:10;Eze 32:7)is described. From what I’m seeing it would appear that they have no bodies prior to Rev 6:12-14. But in Rev. 7 they are said to be before the throne (not underneath) and described as wearing robes and holding palm branches in their hands… All of this says to me that they had no bodies but after vs 12-14 they have received bodies.
Also, Revelation 6:”How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” This also shows that everything that has happened up until this point is not God’s judgement of man and the earth…”How long will You refrain from judging…”. I would appear to me that God’s judgement doesn’t come until the opening of the seventh seal which begins the trumpet judgements in Rev 8:7 and continues from that point.
So basically my position has little to do with tribulation or the great tribulation. It has to do more with the church being raptured prior to God unleashing His wrath or judgement on man and the earth. (Romans 2:5,5:9 1Thes 1:10,5:9 Rev6:16-17)
I too tried for 2 years to make a case for the pre-trib position and failed. I also tried to prove a post and mid trib position and had the same results. It seemed that I always had to put an eschatological twist (as Marty so aptly described it) on them to make them work as well.
I have to say, this is probably the most civilized discussion I’ve been engaged in on this topic. Thanks!
Be blessed…
Brandon
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 29th, 2007 10:37
Steve, I do not see why 2 Thess. 1:8 must be referring to the rapture and the Second Coming as the same event.
Perhaps the pre-trib position claims the “literal interpretation” label because of its interpretation of Revelation. If we are to allegorize Revelation, we are in essence writing off a very large and significant portion of Scripture.
I realize of course that the Bible often employs allegory, but there is a rather weighty amount of detail in Revelation that I believe to be literal and not figurative. I say that because throughout the Bible, it is consistent that prophecy is literal. While symbolic language may be used, it is always used to describe actual events.
I guess what I am trying to say is, in answer to your question concerning the difference in our hermeneutics, I believe that a literal interpretation of Revelation will lead us to an understanding of Thessalonians that teaches a pre-trib rapture. A figurative interpretation can lead one to perhaps a mid- or post- position.
I hope this hasn’t been to muddled. I am suffering from an attack of the killer sinuses and generally when that happens I reserve the right to deny responsibility for anything I say.
March 29th, 2007 10:37
I obviously don’t understand the HTML thingy too well either….
Brandon
[Edit by Steve: I took care of it for you, Brandon!
]
March 29th, 2007 10:40
Hey Gordon,
I ALWAYS reserve the right to deny responsibility for anything I say…hope you feel better.
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 29th, 2007 10:46
Brandon, it seems we are here at the same time.
You asked me what difference did I see between “the” tribulation and the “Great Tribulation”.
I would probably drop the “the” on the first and simply describe it as the tribulation that the world, Satan and the flesh brings against all believers.
The “Great Tribulation” is of course, the seven years of the outpouring of God’s wrath between the rapture and the Second Coming.
So I do not believe that God will spare us from tribulation in the general sense, but I do believe that He will spare us from His wrath in the Great Tribulation.
March 29th, 2007 10:48
Thanks for the kind sentiments, Brandon.
God bless.
March 29th, 2007 14:11
Gordon, sorry you are not feeling well, bro. Sounds like you’re dealing with the same stuff I’ve been dealing with. I tried to return to work today, but lasted little more than an hour before coming back home again. siiiiigh
With regard to “literal” interpretation of Revelation, let me give an example of where I think it breaks down:
Portions of the book of Daniel are parallel to events recorded in Revelation, no? They both fall into what we term “apocalyptic literature”. As such, I know of no hermeneutic, including the dispensation, pre-trib, pre-mil position, which interprets the things recorded in Daniel’s writings (the apocalyptic parts) as truly literal.
When Daniel talks about a statue, and a large rock hurtling down the mountain and crushing the statue, I know of no one who is looking for a literal statue and a literal large rock. This is the symbolic language to which you allude, right?
However, when Revelation talks about locusts, or hail storms, or stars falling to the earth, we somehow are taught that a literal interpretation means we must be looking for those literal events to happen at some point. This is the whole basis for the “Left Behind” series.
Likewise, when Daniel talks about 70 weeks, the dispensationalist turns that into 70 weeks plus however many are included in the “parenthesis” (of which Daniel makes no mention), therefore forcing an interpretation on the text.
However, even regarding a “literal” futuristic view of Revelation, since Revelation does not mention the rapture, and mentions “saints” on the earth through the tribulation, I don’t see how even that type of futuristic interpretation requires a pre-trib rapture.
The reason I say 2 Thess 1:8 refers to both is because it includes the “relief” for those who are in Christ (a “relief” that would not be necessary if we were already 7 years into our time with Christ) and the judgment of those who are not in Christ (Christ returning with fire to judge).
If 2 Thess 1:8 does not refer to both, which do you think it refers to? And how do you explain away the other aspect of His coming?
Additionally, I’m not interpreting 2 Thess 1:8 in a vacuum, but rather in conjunction with his first letter to the Thessalonians, as well as chapter 2 of the same letter.
Finally, one more point to make: God keeping us from His wrath does not require that we be removed from the earth. Noah was kept from the wrath of God, but without being removed from the earth. Would you agree?
I really would like to understand what it is about the book of Revelation that then pushes the Thessalonian passages into a pre-trib understanding.
If you don’t want to continue with it (given your current physical condition, and the potential for frustration!!), I understand completely. I never like to push beyond the point where we’re both enjoying the conversation!
Like we’ve agreed already, it’s nowhere near a cardinal doctrine.
March 29th, 2007 14:40
Steve, I would agree with most of what you said in your last comment.
I think there is some distinction, however, between the language of Daniel and Revelation (I would agree that they are both apocalyptic in nature). Where Daniel uses symbols, it clearly indicates that the terms used are symbolic of something else (e.g. kingdoms). Revelation makes no such indication. Secondly, even if some of the language of Revelation is symbolic, certainly some of must be taken literally. How do we draw the distinction if the writer does not clarify which is which? This is why I tend to take a literal interpretation of Revelation.
Why do I believe that Revelation calls for a pre-trib interpretation of Thessalonians? Primarily because after the third chapter, the church is not mentioned again until the end of the vision. True, it does mention saints upon the earth, but I believe these to be those who are saved after the Rapture. If the church is not present during the events described in Revelation, then it must have been raptured out.
I think 2 Thess. 1:8 is probably talking about the Second Coming. Given the verses that follow describing the rise of the anti-Christ, it seems to be referring to Christ coming at the end of the tribulation. Where we would probably differ is that I see the event described in 1 Thess. 4 as being a separate event (the Rapture).
Thanks for your concern. I hope you feel better too. I think one verse in this text that we can agree upon is 1 Thess. 5:28.
March 29th, 2007 16:13
Gordon, forgive me for asking this question repeatedly, but if 2 Thess 1:8 is only the Second Coming, why does Paul describe it as a point of “relief” for us? Wouldn’t the rapture be the point of relief?
As far as “saints” in Revelation being only those saved after the rapture, I think this ignores the fact that the word “saints” is frequently used throughout the NT to describe the church. Therefore, I think we need to read a huge distinction into the text of Revelation that doesn’t get justified throughout the rest of the NT.
Furthermore, even if the church isn’t being discussed during the events of the tribulation, I don’t think that necessitates a rapture out prior. It could simply mean that the church is being protected by God somewhere on earth in the midst of the tribulation.
Just trying to get you to think outside the box of what we’ve always been taught, my friend
At any rate, you are absolutely correct on our agreement regarding 1 Thess 5:28 and I appreciate you bringing that into the discussion!!
You’re a good friend, Gordon.
March 29th, 2007 18:02
Just trying to get you to think outside the box of what we’ve always been taught, my friend
You are assuming that I never have thought outside this box before.
March 29th, 2007 18:07
Yeah, actually, to be honest, I did think that!
March 29th, 2007 18:43
I don’t think we are going to come to terms on this verse. Let’s just say that I like this box a little better than the other ones.
March 30th, 2007 06:47
Gordon,
I think we agree with regard to tribulation generally speaking.
Where do you see the rapture taking place in the book of Revelation? At Rev4:1 at Rev 6:12-14 or elsewhere?
Is the opening of the seals to the scroll judgement and wrath? Reading from a pre-trib perspective, I don’t see where the unredeemed left after the rapture would see the events of the first 6 seals as any kind of judgement from God against them…actually, with the exception of the first seal, I don’t see anything that we don’t already see today…War, famine and pestilence.
Like Steve said, if this is becoming more of an annoyance than a blessing we can stop. Thanks for your willingness to talk about this topic.
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 30th, 2007 18:00
Hi Brandon, sorry it has taken me a while to respond. I don’t mind discussing this with you (or Steve, hehehe) at all.
Regarding your question as to the timing of the rapture in Revelation, I would tend to think it is in 4:1. Perhaps, though, that is wishful thinking on my part as I certainly want to be able to witness the glorious events of chapters 4 and 5.
However, I also tend to believe that the martyrs described in chapter 6 are those who are martyred after the tribulation has begun (signified by the release of the four horsemen).
It is entirely possible that you are correct in saying that the world will not recognize the first six seals as the judgement of God. Given the current hysteria over global warming and other geo-seismological events, it may be that they blame George Bush (that was tongue-in-cheek)or mankind in general for these events.
If they fail to worship God in His manifestations of grace, it is unlikely that many of these will turn to Him in His wrath. I believe that many (not all) of those who are left behind will be those described in Rom. 1 as being “given over to a reprobate mind”.
March 30th, 2007 23:19
The rapture in I Cor. 15:52 is tied to vs. 54 which is Israel’s resurrection which pretribs say is posttrib (note “when” and “then” in vs. 54). Now you know why theory defenders spend inordinate amounts of time trying to scientifically explain how fast the “twinkling” will be instead of bringing out the real “when” of vs. 52! And the rapture in I Thess. 4:13-18 is tied to the “sudden destruction” of I Thess. 5:3. If such destruction of the wicked occurs before or during the trib, how could they be left alive to serve the Antichrist throughout the trib? Even the A.C. isn’t destroyed until the trib’s end. But if pretribs were to connect the rapture with that destruction, their theory would self-destruct! So here are two passages which, if treated honestly, prove the historic posttrib view. And if we believe in the harmony of Scripture, we should start with such clear passages and then harmonize unclear or disputed ones (such as II Thess. 2 and Rev. 3:10) with the clear passages! Just my two cents. Mack
March 30th, 2007 23:25
Mack, well put. I appreciate the comment. First time here? Or just first time commenting? Either way, welcome!
March 30th, 2007 23:54
Gordon,
Just to clairify, I’m not trying to nit-pick your words. In Revelation 6, I would agree that this is still tribulation. Is that what you meant, or do you see that as a time when God is pouring forth His wrath and judgement?
Also, I had mentioned this before and Marty shared his understanding of it, but do you see the parallels between Matthew 24 and Rev 6-7?
Matt 24:4-5…Rev 6:1-2
Matt 24:6…..Rev 6:3-4
Matt 24:7-8…Rev 6:5-6
Matt 24:9-14..Rev 6:7-11
Matthew 24:15-28 then seems to be a reiteration of the warnings that Jesus is giving as to what the signs will be of His coming and not to be deceived by the false christ.
Matt 24:29-31…Rev 6:12-14 Both describe the coming of Christ and then after these signs comes the first mention of the wrath of God in the book of Revelation in verses 6:16-17.
Also, I think it’s interesting to note Jesus’ statement in vs.6 “…See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.”
Or in vs.8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.”
I’ll stop there as I’m about to fall asleep sitting here.
Your thoughts on those verses and possible parallels.
Thanks for continuing the conversation.
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 31st, 2007 08:11
Gordon,
I’m not sure I actually finished my point. My point is that if the events described in Rev 6:1-11 and Matthew 24:4-28 are tribulation (as opposed to the wrath of God) is it plausible to conclude that the Church would/could be here for those events?
I guess that I just fail to see anything in the Bible that suggests that we will be spared from these events. I do, however, see plenty of evidence in scripture to support us not being present for the outpouring of God’s wrath. Which I believe begins at the opening of the seventh seal Rev 8:1 and Rev and the trumpet judgements that follow in Rev 8:7.
I’m not sure I’m doing a good job at making my point but there it is nonetheless…
Thanks again!
Be blessed…
Brandon
March 31st, 2007 10:50
Brandon, it’s possible that you are right. Interpreting prophetic scripture surely isn’t an exact science, even though some feel that their interpretation is the only honest one.
March 31st, 2007 14:10
All,
Thanks for the opportunity to be a part of this awesome interaction between brothers and sisters. I can see from the conversation there are multiple views being expressed. The cool thing is that this is still a civil conversation!
Brandon.
Sorry, I’ve been so busy I haven’t had a change to get back with you on this. Let’s see, you asked…
I’m curious about the return of Christ that you’re talking about in 70AD when the destruction of the temple occurred. In that context I can see the literal interpretation of “this generation”.
Honestly, (at this point) I believe the Great Tribulation has already occurred. I think the culmination of it took place with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD. That would mean we are now in the Millennial reign (this should really stir things up a bit). This leads nicely into your next question…
Are you saying that all of the events in Matthew 24 have already taken place?
Yes. I think the key is reading Matthew 24 trying NOT to have any preconceived ideas, this is not easy to do.
Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Jesus tells his followers a whole bunch of stuff that is going to happen. He makes no mention that it will be in the distant future (2000 years) and culminates it by say this generation (remember no reference to the distant future which would make it “that generation”) will see all of these things fulfilled. Using this interpretation doesn’t require you to speculate that there is any time gap (Daniel’s 7th week) or anything like that. It’s a straight forward reading of the scripture.
In Him,
-marty
March 31st, 2007 16:27
I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, even though I don’t have a dog in this fight. Steve has already agreed with my position, so I’m happy.
What does everyone think of Jesus’ reference to Daniel in Matt 24:15-16 - “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” (ESV)
To what is Daniel referring (Dan 11:31; 12:11)? Is Jesus referring to the same thing (event), or adding another level to Daniel’s prophecy? Also, could the “then” in 24:16 and the “then” in 24:21 (”For then there will be great tribulation…”) be the same time period?
-Alan
April 1st, 2007 06:25
Marty,
I’m trying to better understand where you get that we are in the millennial reign of Christ right now. Is that a literal millennium? Or a figurative millennium? In the same way that you cannot read Matt 24 with any eschatological twist, you also cannot read it in a vacuum. Can you please share supporting scripture for today being the millennial reign?
Alan,
It would appear to me that Jesus is continuing to answer the original question the disciples asked Him. “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Matt 24:29 seems to indicate that this is the same period. “…after the tribulation of those days…” Did that make sense? It’s too early for my brain.
Br blessed…
Brandon
April 2nd, 2007 01:25
Brandon,
You said: I’m trying to better understand where you get that we are in the millennial reign of Christ right now. Is that a literal millennium? Or a figurative millennium?
My answer there would be from Revelation chapter 20. I believe the “binding” of Satan occurred beginning with the earthly ministry of Christ and certainly at Christ’s resurrection. It appears to me from the text that if Satan is bound, the next thing is the Millennial Reign. Obviously, I would say the millennium is figurative representing a long period of time since we’re already approaching 2000 years! We find this is a common usage of the number 1,000 throughout scripture (i.e. Deut 7:9; Josh 23:10; Psa 50:11). Sure, there are many occurrences where 1000 is used literally, but it doesn’t have to be, depends upon context.
In the same way that you cannot read Matt 24 with any eschatological twist, you also cannot read it in a vacuum.
I don’t think that I have. I started out as a “pretribber”; but as I’ve tried to read scripture from more of a “as a first century believer” and not with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. While there are a few Preterist things I don’t fully understand yet I must say there are far fewer things that I’ve come across that require “unique” interpretation (Gap in Daniel’s 70 weeks, another rebuilding of the temple, etc.). I have had to refine, even change my views. Will they change again? I don’t really know. If I come across something compelling then yes. I can say I believe the partial preterist view is the best “off the shelf” view in my opinion. An outstanding resource, very objective is a book by Steve Gregg is titled “Revelation: Four Views.” In it Gregg steps through the four main eschatalogical views (Historicist, Preterist, Futurist and Spiritual). He does a tremendous job of not showing partiality throughout the work. It’s great because it pulls all the main view together side by side. I highly recommend it, what ever your “bent.”
Can you please share supporting scripture for today being the millennial reign?
Sure. In Revelation chapter 20, see above.
I’m thoroughly enjoying our chat. If there are more questions please let me know. I may not know the answer but trying to find them is half the fun!
May our Lord richly bless you!
-marty
April 2nd, 2007 20:43
Marty,
So are you saying that satan is bound right now? I’m not trying to nit-pick your words but your entire position, as you have stated it, seems to hinge on this. Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed;…. Are people deceived by him today? Brother, with all due respect toward you this seems to be a straw man at best.
So in the instance of the millennial reign of Christ, you see that as a figurative 1000 years…is that not an eschatological twist?
But even if I gave you that much, the idea that satan is bound and does not deceive the nations is foreign to me.
I appreciate your willingness to continue this conversation. It has been rewarding and edifying for me.
Be blessed…
Brandon
April 3rd, 2007 23:18
Marty and Brandon, just wanted to let you guys know I appreciate the tone with which you’ve been carrying on this conversation.
I’ve chosen to just sit back and watch you guys without jumping in on the topic any more than what I’ve already written. It feels kinda weird to do that on my own blog, but it’s fun.
Keep up the good conversation, and whichever one of you is last to leave, make sure to shut the lights off and lock the door
hehe
April 4th, 2007 00:14
Steve,
Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity. It’s fun, challenging and invigorating. It’s a tad easier to respond to this comment than Brandon’s questions though! Back to working on my other response.
In Christ,
-marty
April 4th, 2007 01:21
Brandon,
I thank you too! I find this conversation very stimulating and appreciate your questions, comments as well as the challenges.
Regarding the “entire position.” The Post-Tribulation, Amillennial position is one that has been held by many believers since the earliest days of the church. Until I began really investigating eschatology I had no idea the position even existed!
The common view of our day, PreTribulation, premillennialism is actually a relative newcomer. Not popularized until the mid-1800’s this view has it’s roots in a vision had by a sister in the Brethren movement. It was popularized by Darby and Scofield. Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) are of course the modern day chanpions.
So are you saying that satan is bound right now? I’m not trying to nit-pick your words but your entire position, as you have stated it, seems to hinge on this.
Rev 20:1
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed;…. Are people deceived by him today? Brother, with all due respect toward you this seems to be a straw man at best.
Yes. This does not preclude his minions from “doing their best (or worst).” Additionally, Satan is not the only influence of evil (see James 1:14-15). Actually the text also specifies that Satan is restricted only to the deceiving of the nations, not individuals. I believe the picture here is that though he may try, he is powerless against the risen Christ.
I think it’s very important to note, the Amillennialist view sees this chapter of Revelation as figurative for a number of reasons. You have Satan, a spirit, being bound by a chain, a physical device. Again, Satan, a spirit, is then locked inside a physical dungeon. It’s very difficult to see a literal interpretation of his.
If we look at Matt 12:29 Jesus is basically saying that he has bound the strongman (Satan). The context is clear that he is referring to Satan.
I know if you look at the world today the first thought is it’s pretty bad. But what about the fact that when Jesus was on the planet the only place of light was the tiny nation of Israel. Now the gospel has spread throughout the world – unhindered by the forces of evil. Does evil try to stop it, yes. But it is powerless to do so. Again, this passage is figurative in nature as is much of the book of Revelation. Why are many opposed to that? I don’t know. Revelation falls into the genre of apocalyptic literature which is, by it’s nature, very symbolic. Are there things in it that are literal, yes.
I don’t think I’ve constructed any strawman argument here, merely presented a view which is different from the one you hold and are familiar with. A view which has actually be around a lot longer than the dispensational Pretribulational/pre-millennial view so prevalent today.
Hope this helps and I’m sorry, I may not have made the clearest presentation.
Again, may the Lord bless you.
In Christ,
-marty