I may be opening a can of worms here, but due the fairly vague article I wrote on how One Verse Destroys The Pre-Trib Rapture, I decided something a little more comprehensive may be required. As such, below you will find some of the other reasons why I don’t believe the Pre-Tribulation Rapture to be biblical.
Please be aware, I love every child of God, regardless of their theological views, as long as they don’t compromise on the true gospel of Christ. This isn’t my attempt at being pig-headed, self-righteous, and trying to condemn others; these are merely my views, which I believe to be scriptural.
What I want to do, is primarily use the scriptures those who believe in the pre-tribulation rapture use in defence of their belief, and show clearly how the passage in context does not support the teaching, but rather flies in the face of it.
1) Matt 24:36-41
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
This is one of the most referred to passages to support the rapture. It is said that those who are ‘taken’ are Christians. Hence, when Christ comes in the air before the tribulation, the Christian will be ‘taken up’ and the ungodly will be left.
But is that what the passage is teaching?
First of all, it is assumption to say that this event spoken of precedes the tribulation period. Secondly, is it really the Christian that is ‘taken’? Look at the passage carefully and you will see the primary parallel between the return of Christ, and the days of Noah, are not the fact that everyone will be eating and drinking and marrying. This goes on throughout every age. What Christ means here is that everything will be going on as normal. The reason for the parallel with Noah’s day in particular, is because of who was taken away and who was left. Read it again. Who did the flood take away? The ungodly. Who was left? Righteous Noah and his family. So shall it be when Christ returns. The ungodly will be taken first. So this passage in actual fact does not support the rapture event at all.
Still think that Christians are taken and ungodly left? Let’s look at another passage.
2) Matt 13:24-30
“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”
Jesus interpretation is in v37-43,
“He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
In this passage Jesus teaches very clearly about the basic order of events that will surround his return. He will send forth his angels to gather the tares (ungodly) first. They are going to gather out the ungodly and cast them into hell and then the righteous will remain and shine forth as the sun. This passage therefore supports what is taught in Matt 24.
3) Matt 13:47-50
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
The same thing is happening according to this parable. The wicked are going to be cut off from among the just. Not the other way around.
4) 1 Thess 4:16-17
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
For those who believe in the ’silent’ rapture, take a look at some of the words used to describe this particular event. We have the Lord descending with a shout, the voice of the archangel and the trump of God. Is it just me or is that a very loud passage of scripture?
I find it odd how these end-time movies like the ‘Left Behind’ series by Tim LaHaye, depict the people of God disappearing off the face of the earth, with no warning or commotion or fuss. Those who are left don’t know where the others have gone, except a minority who have knowledge of the scriptures. It just doesn’t seem to tally with this passage, which they say supports the doctrine more vividly than any other.
I have capitalized the phrase ‘to meet the Lord’ because I want to look at it in greater detail. The Greek wording here is found in two other places. I want to look at just one of them.
Acts 28:13-16:
“And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appiiforum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage. And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.”
In this passage we have Paul and company travelling towards Rome. The record tells us that the Christians in Rome heard about it and began travelling towards Paul to meet them (like we rise to meet the Lord in the air) and what happened? They returned with Paul and the others, just like we will return to the earth with the Lord. It’s very clear and simple in the grammar that this is the intended meaning of the portion in 1 Thess 4.
5) 1 Cor 15:51-54
“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”
It is clear that the event spoken of here, it’s the same of that in 1 Thess 4, and those who believe and teach the rapture believe also that this is so. But, if this is true (which it is) then they have a problem. Notice the phrase ‘at the last trump’. It is clear from this that there must be other trumps preceding this one because this is the last trump. Scripture only knows of one series of ‘trumps’ and they are recorded for us in the chapters Revelation 8-11. The first trump is during the tribulation period, and so the other six continue after that.
Do you see the problem? The rapturists say that the event of 1 Corinthians 15 which happens at the last trump, is just prior to the tribulation, but the bible says that even the first trump is during the tribulation. So how can something that is to happen at the last trump, happen before the first trump? Impossible! The only explanation they can give, is that it is from a different series of trumps. But this is clutching at straws as the bible only teaches of one series of seven trumps.
Conclusion
From this short study of the word of God, I believe that it is abundantly clear that there is no room in scripture for a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints. I trust that all our minds will be held captive to the word of God, and that all prejudice will be cast aside as we submit to the revealed will of God.
[Please note - some of this post and parts of comments disappeared (I'm assuming it happened when I switched domains). I managed to salvage the post almost in original form, but a part of one or two comments were lost]
Do you forget to visit the blog? Get free updates via email. Or via RSS if you use a feedreaderWant to read other articles? Try these...
- One Verse Destroys The Pre-Trib Rapture
- Pre-Tribulation Rapture Spoof!
- Contrasts In The Body Of Christ
Want to pray intelligently for this preacher? Go here to learn more!
Added Commentary
By pilgrim
on 04.06.07
Hello Armen…thank you for replying to my comment, even though you don’t know me. Not even my brethern back here in the States reply to the things I say at times on their blogs!
I myself believe in a
By Roman
on 04.06.07
Well put, Pilgrim! You’re quite correct in your use of the original Greek words and concepts and, as usual, quite honest with regards to what is certain and what is not. You’ve written a good explanation of some difficult points.
The Word of God is there for us, but we must approach it humbly and expectantly, as we come before the Living One whose written word it is, and then the Truth is revealed to us.
Axios, adelph
By Jason
on 05.06.07
I’m listening in here. I think pilgrim covered some of my key concerns with the original post.
By pilgrim
on 06.06.07
I think it would be wise to look at the first Matthew passage above more closely. If you look at the original Greek manuscripts, there are two different words used for what is translated in english as “to take” or “took”. To our eyes it would appear as if the Lord was using the same wording, but actually He is NOT. When He speaks of those who are taken away by the flood, He uses the Greek word ??e?, which tranlates as to “lift up” or to “take away”. Also the word can be used as a Hebraism, which might possibly be the use that Christ meant. The Hebraism means “to expiate sin”, and as we can see in the case of the flood, sin was removed from the earth by judgment on sinful mankind.
But what follows is what often is misunderstood. The word used for those who are taken on the day of the Son of Man is pa?a?a
By Armen
on 06.06.07
I appreciate your thoughts brother. What we’re discussing here has been debated by much greater men than we, for many years.
I can see your reasoning, but I still think the arguments are flawed, and too many assumptions made.
Having said that, you’ve obviously given it a great deal of thought, so let me try and get this figured out. Christ returns and gathers His people. Then I assume he returns again to reign for 1000 years, bringing his people with him?
If this is the case, the first obvious problem is that you have two second comings. Is that found in scripture?
Another problem is, you’ll have glorified saints having to return to be among the ungodly and sin.
And a final real problem is where I assume you believe Jews will be saved after Christ returns (the second time), in which case you believe in a second chance gospel; Jews who have rejected Christ, will be able to accept Him when he returns.
I can’t permit my conscience to try and fit these things into scripture, where I don’t see them at all.
By pilgrim
on 06.06.07
(*This is not addressing your previous comment, but the original post)
Forgive me for my continual commenting, Armen, but I have more to add.
The parables that Christ uses in chapter 13 of Matthew are pretty broad. Also, one shouldn
By pilgrim
on 07.06.07
I have already shown, from the original Greek, that many times what is translated into our English translations doesn’t carry the original meaning, nuisances and cultural references that would have been present at the time that Christ and Apostles spoke and wrote what has been faithfully handed down to us. If these are assumptions, how much more so what you have presented? You were the one that assumed that you could destroy the “Pre-Trib Rapture” with one verse. You were the one that mocked and made light of it, using a cartoon featuring the President of the United States and a child. You attacked, I am only attempting to defend and to reason using the Holy Scriptures as the foundation and letting them speak for themselves.
Whether you accept the “Pre-Trib Rapture” or not doesn’t really matter to me, none of us are totally right all the time, but to attack and mock it in the manner you did only colors the other things you say. To question something is fine, and to look into it further to determine if it is correct or not is the right thing to do. Everyone should think for themselves and use the brain God has given them, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, rightly divide the Word of God. But to poke fun and boast in the manner you did is not the way to go about it, brother. I have questioned this subject myself and have looked at the other options, and my conclusion is that, though there may appear to be problems with it, I believe it to be the most thorough and the correct understanding of future things.
As far as the other assumed problems you find, I answer and end with this. First, my question: Was there two comings mentioned in the Old Testament? Many of the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures that show the First Coming of Mashiach, immediately have the Second Coming following it. Looking at those passages with eyes from the past, we would claim that both are fulfilled when Mashiach comes. Yet, from our stand point today, we know that there is a long gap of time in between these prophecies and that there is more than one coming of Messiah. Yet, the resurrection and translation of the saints is not a separate coming, but the start of the
By Jason
on 07.06.07
This has been a helpful dialogue for me to listen in on. Thanks guys.
By Armen
on 07.06.07
Pilgrim - I’m sorry you feel the way you do. You have given this a lot of consideration, and I admire you for that. However, I feel very strongly about the implications of dispensational theology as a whole.
You said, “This is why He is still rejected by His nation today, because He did not bring the Messianic peace.”
The reason Christ was rejected, and is rejected, is always because of man’s depravity, sin, rebellion, and the blinding of the god of this world. It is not because He didn’t fulfill certain criteria which they expected.
“All Israel (the 1/3 that will be left) will be saved at the Second Coming.”
Read 2 Thess 1. There you have Paul writing to early Christians who were suffering.
Their consolation wasn’t that they would be taken up away from it, but that Christ would “come in flaming fire, taking vengenance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Within those words also, you have a delcaration that ALL will be punished for not obeying the gospel; Jews and Gentiles.
Believe me, I’m not saying what I’m saying because my pastor taught me. My pastor, and most of my Christian friends, are Historic Premillenialists (not dispensational), but much of what I say contradicts their thoughts. Amillenialism has it’s issues, but it appears more biblical to my knowledge and conscience.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to give this topic some more consideration in the near future.
P.S. - Please don’t see this as a desire to end the discussion. If you, or anyone has anymore to add, I’d be glad to read it.
By Flo Banks
on 09.06.07
What gets me is how recent the popular pretrib rapture view really is! No church before 1830 ever taught it, and even Ice, LaHaye, Jeffrey etc. agree since they can find only a few INDIVIDUALS before then that they think taught it. Curious? Google “Pretrib Rapture Diehards.” Also “Famous Rapture Watchers.” Flo Banks
By Daniel Ritchie
on 12.06.07
Armen
I was up visiting my old minister at Dervock yesterday and I drove past your home congregations meeting house in Ballymoney - very nice place.
By Armen
on 12.06.07
Flo - Precisely, but some people just don’t see it like that.
Daniel - I was preaching on Sunday in Tazmania, and a man after the meeting approached me, to tell me (in his opinion) one of the greatest theologians of the last century was Armenian. Can you guess who he was talking about?
By Daniel Ritchie
on 12.06.07
None other than R.J. Rushdoony. I am not sure if he was an absolutely brilliant theologian (admittedly I have not read his Systematic Theology) but he certainly wrote many excellent books and was a great man of God.
By Chris Selvig
on 28.06.07
Matt 24:36-41is NOT refering to any pre-trib event, but to final judgement. The words “taken away” are better translated “swept away”. This is what a flood does. The word “taken” used later is better translated “taken near”. The same greek word is NOTused throughout this passage.
Chris Selvig
Near Pittsburgh, PA, USA
By rob
on 25.07.07
hey armen, good article! was reading a book on the second coming today, WJ Grier’s “Momentous Event,” have you come across it?
read a very tongue in cheek comment in it about how the early church fathers don’t mention much on a “millennium,”
“have you ever known a premillennialist who could keep themselves from talking about the millennium?”
By Armen
on 25.07.07
Rob - I actually own that book, but I’ve yet to read it and it is in Northern Ireland. It’s supposed to be a good place to begin in understanding the A-mill side.
As for the question, my answer would be ‘No’.
By Ralph Du Bois
on 21.08.07
Answer this, without resorting to allegory:
If Christ returns mid-trib, it will be 3 1/2 years after the Anti-christ’s rise to power; if Christ returns post-trib, it will be 7 years years after Anti-christ’s rise to power. . . either way you’ll know the day at least. BUT WE DON’T. And the only solution to that (wiggle as you may to get out of it) is to accept a pre-trib, pre-millennial rapture.
Jesus Christ himself outlines the Book of Revelation:
The Things you have seen 1 - 1:20 (Talking to John)
The Things which are 2:1 - 3:22 (Church Age) and
The Things which will take place after this 4:1 - 22:21 (After the end of the Church Age [all the Saints are now only seen in Heaven]).
In fact, for those of you who don’t hold to people being saved after the Rapture, please read REV 6:9-11.
I have found, through study and discussion that a person’s hermeneutics usually point to the way a person believes: For instance, one who believes the Bible to be allegorical will most of the time present an amillennial, post-trib view; while people (such as myself) who take the Bible seriously generally accept a premillennial, pre-trib view.
And you know what? In the end analysis, all that matters is do you accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Lordship? If you do, He will explain everything to us on the way up. Whenever it is.
By Armen
on 24.08.07
Ralph - I appreciate your comment.
If only it was as simple as most pretrib premill folks think. The greatest Christian minds, for the most part, never would have the audacity to put the events of the coming of Christ into a chart. However, it’s interesting to see folks that believe in the rapture, draw out their diagrams and make their movies about a system of the Lord’s return, which is less than a tenth of the age of Christianity itself.
I’m not going to debate the matter though.
By Jon Edwards
on 21.12.07
Thanks for a great blog! Wondering if anyone has read MacPherson’s bestselling book “The Rapture Plot” (Armageddon Books online) which is 300 unanswerable pages of documentation showing how, when, where, and by whom the famous pre-tribulation rapture sprang from the mists of Scotland 177 years ago. This “encyclopedia” of pre-tribism may turn you inside out if you aren’t careful! MacPherson also wrote “Pretrib Rapture Desperados” (see Google). Jon
Haven't you got anything to say?