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
Along the same lines...
- Pre-Tribulation Rapture Spoof!
- One Verse Destroys The Pre-Trib Rapture
- Contrasts In The Body Of Christ
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 04.06.07
I’m listening in here. I think pilgrim covered some of my key concerns with the original post.
By pilgrim
on 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
(*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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
This has been a helpful dialogue for me to listen in on. Thanks guys.
By Armen
on 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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 04.06.07
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?