HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?

[Wordsmith]

The rapture isn't His coming. He doesn't come until Revelation 19. So, as such, would that not mean that the rapture is not a resurrection, but a translation?

So in your theory none of the passages below are a rapture, resurrection, gathering? They definitely are a coming!

You have no scriptural basis for saying a rapture (which is not a word in scripture) is a translation and not a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:232 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?


1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.


1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the comingof the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.


1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

His coming mentioned in 23 is at the start of the millennium.

His coming is also mentioned in 6 passages listed above that are clearly a catching up, resurrection, gathering, or rapture if you like that word.

The first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20.

I have already addressed this once on this thread.

I'll let you explain how those that have part in the first resurrection live and reign with Christ for a thousand years if that first resurrection is at the end of the 1000 years?

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Same with the trinity. (And I am also a die hard trinitarian.)

I do not believe it is the same. While you won't find the word trinity it is clearly shown in several passages.

You will not find the word rapture but you do find catching up, gathering and other descriptive terms.

What you do not find is that catching up happening before the tribulation. Nor do you find any promise of a translation (we shall be changed) without a resurrection attached.

 

[TMSO]

So in your theory none of the passages below are a rapture, resurrection, gathering? They definitely are a coming!

You have no scriptural basis for saying a rapture (which is not a word in scripture) is a translation and not a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:232 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?


1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.


1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the comingof the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.


1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,




His coming is also mentioned in 6 passages listed above that are clearly a catching up, resurrection, gathering, or rapture if you like that word.


I have already addressed this once on this thread.

None of what you say has done anything to explain whether the rapture is a translation (changing of location), or a resurrection (people coming back to life to live on Earth.) So again, is the rapture solely a change of location (earth to air to forever be with Christ), or a resurrection, where people are getting their glorified bodies and living on Earth, as we see at the first resurrection before the millennial kingdom? The first resurrection is at the end of the tribulation, at the start of the millennial kingdom, while the second resurrection is judgement day, at the end of the millennial kingdom.

I'll let you explain how those that have part in the first resurrection live and reign with Christ for a thousand years if that first resurrection is at the end of the 1000 years?

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Here is the part you seem to miss:
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

I do not believe it is the same. While you won't find the word trinity it is clearly shown in several passages.

Says you. (I mean, I agree, however this is not a rational argument to make. There are plenty of people who do not see it clearly shown in any passages.)

You will not find the word rapture but you do find catching up, gathering and other descriptive terms.

I believe in the rapture, I just question whether it is a resurrection, or simply a translation. (Movement from one place to another place...)

What you do not find is that catching up happening before the tribulation. Nor do you find any promise of a translation (we shall be changed) without a resurrection attached.

While you may not find the word "rapture" or "translation", it is clearly shown in several passages, as you show above. And no, I don't believe a resurrection has to be attached. Why? Those people in the first resurrection were simply souls before they lived again. John says he saw the souls of those... and they lived again and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. As such, I find my question to be quite rational. Is it resurrection or simply translation. (By translation, I don't mean changed from one thing to another, but their location changed from one place to another place.)

 

[Wordsmith]

None of what you say has done anything to explain whether the rapture is a translation (changing of location), or a resurrection (people coming back to life to live on Earth.) So again, is the rapture solely a change of location (earth to air to forever be with Christ), or a resurrection, where people are getting their glorified bodies and living on Earth, as we see at the first resurrection before the millennial kingdom? The first resurrection is at the end of the tribulation, at the start of the millennial kingdom, while the second resurrection is judgement day, at the end of the millennial kingdom.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

In your theory what does the above highlighted portion mean? Who is brought from where, to where and when?

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Clearly those alive at the coming pf the Lord will not precede the the dead in "translation" (your theory) caught up and changed to immortality Pauls doctrine.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 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.

Nothing here indicates these two events are separated by any significant period of time. The dead are raised first then we which are alive and remain.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Both the dead and living put on immortality at this time.


1 Thessalonians 4:16 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:

17 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.

Even if you insist on calling this a translation which it is not by the definition you gave the dead are raised first. There is no removal of mortal flesh and blood saints to another location in any of these passages! We shall be changed not relocated!

We do agree the first resurrection is at the end of the tribulation.

When is your "translation" and what is the scripture that tells you so?

 

[Wordsmith]

I believe in the rapture, I just question whether it is a resurrection, or simply a translation. (Movement from one place to another place...)

If you believe in it and proclaim it you should be able to show it from scripture.

Frankly I find it absurd to say the rapture is just a relocation project with no scriptural proof. Who teaches this doctrine in the body of Christ today? Can you show others who preach and teach this doctrine? I would be curious to listen to them.

 

[Wordsmith]

While you may not find the word "rapture" or "translation", it is clearly shown in several passages, as you show above. And no, I don't believe a resurrection has to be attached. Why? Those people in the first resurrection were simply souls before they lived again. John says he saw the souls of those... and they lived again and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. As such, I find my question to be quite rational. Is it resurrection or simply translation. (By translation, I don't mean changed from one thing to another, but their location changed from one place to another place.)

I do not doubt your sincerity but I do doubt your ability to clearly show this from scripture. Paul clearly shows the resurrection and the catching up and changing of the living to be 2 parts of one event, The Coming Of The Lord.

I have stated my scriptural position I will be looking forward for you to do the same.

 

[Josheb]

None of what you say has done anything to explain whether the rapture is a translation (changing of location), or a resurrection...

I just read through the thread and I find at least three posters who have addressed the matter of the rapture being a translation or a resurrection. The two are not mutually exclusive. The rapture is a translation and a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:35-42, 50-54
But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body........ Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."


Resurrected and transformed. Both, not one or the other.

 

[Wordsmith]

I just read through the thread and I find at least three posters who have addressed the matter of the rapture being a translation or a resurrection. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What is your definition of "translation" in this context?

The rapture is a translation and a resurrection.

TMSO's definition is "(Movement from one place to another place...)". That wording does not allow for being changed.

 

[Josheb]

What is your definition of "translation" in this context?

I believe I have already answered that. It means "changed." I am wondering why you ask because you have just as much access to the text and just as much access to the Greek, and just as much access to the comparative uses in scripture as I do. The other poster claimed no one had said anything about this (which is not true) and scripture was provided that proves the point and ANYONE questioning the matter can (and should) instantly investigate (and not depend on my posts. The person who will best convince the person is the person themself. Yes?

TMSO's definition is "(Movement from one place to another place...)". That wording does not allow for being changed.

LOL! Being moved from the grave to heaven does. So too does being moved from earth to heaven. Those are both also changes; changes from one location to another. There is also the changed from having been saved and being saved to the completion of salvation that occurs only with our resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 covers all those bases.

Besides, I am not convinced the other poster's definition is correct. It is clear from the claim no one has addressed his concern there is a problem with either reading, comprehension, bias confirmation, or all three. The opening statement in Post 59 has been disproven (with explicitly stated scripture) and the same post adds things to scripture nowhere stated in the text cited. That proof has been ignored. Post 63 references scripture but, again, uses the reference selectively. Post 67 moves the goals posts by reporting Jesus meets us in the air but doesn't come to earth when it was previously stated, "Jesus does not descend for the rapture." He's contradicted himself. Post 67 tries to make the Father the one sitting on the throne in Psalm 110 because of his interpretation of Revelation 21 in abject neglect and denial of the fact Revelation 3 states Jesus is sitting on the Father's throne! He argues over the word "end" in Post 71 and obfuscates the fact both texts in question plainly stated the end was coming in the New Testament era.

In other words, every single one of his posts if fatally flawed in two ways: both exegetically and logically.

So, I am not sure why you think TMSO's posts matter. They are not the kind of handling of scripture, nor the kind of reasoning anyone should consider veracious, nor by which anyone should be persuaded. I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to pick up a copy of D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" to better understand how flawed those posts are because he explains how some of the very common ways folks handle scripture is really just fallacy.




As far as the point about "translation" goes, 1 Corinthians 15 covers all the bases broached so far and several posters have noted this in one way or another.

 

[TMSO]

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

In your theory what does the above highlighted portion mean? Who is brought from where, to where and when?

It sounds like they are asleep [dead], and perhaps continue to be so? Sounds like translation. (Again, by translation I mean a change of location, from earth to heaven. How that takes place doesn't matter, translation is still the proper word.) The only difference I see in terminology between resurrection and translation is that in resurrection they live again on earth, as we see in Revelation 20.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Clearly those alive at the coming pf the Lord will not precede the the dead in "translation" (your theory) caught up and changed to immortality Pauls doctrine.

So that is what the verse means. Okay. However, I disagree with you. Those who are asleep will precede those who are still alive. Consider those souls who are given a robe in Revelation, who were under the altar. They were not resurrected, just given a robe. They aren't resurrected until the first resurrection.They don't live again until the first resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 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.

Nothing here indicates these two events are separated by any significant period of time. The dead are raised first then we which are alive and remain.

No, but it can't be the first resurrection in Revelation 20.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

That still doesn't seem to say resurrection, as in living again that we see in Revelation 20.

Both the dead and living put on immortality at this time.

Apparently there are some on this board who are unwilling to understand what nuance is. I said that translation, as I am using it in place of resurrection, is change of location from earth to heaven. Jesus does not descend as in this is not the second coming. We meet Him where? In the air, not on the ground. Jesus is not returning at this time. I am not sure why you don't understand my stated concern that this change that takes place with the translation is not resurrection, but as has been stated, the mortal puts on the immortal. Again, in Revelation 20, the resurrection is stated as the souls of those who died in the tribulation, living again and reigning with Christ. Living again on Earth as people, reigning with Christ.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 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:

Yes, they rise first. Again, it says nothing of resurrection. Resurrection does not speak to change, but to living again. Resurrection does not speak to translation.

17 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.

Yes, we will be caught up with them in the clouds, to meet Jesus not on the ground, but in the air.

Even if you insist on calling this a translation which it is not by the definition you gave the dead are raised first. There is no removal of mortal flesh and blood saints to another location in any of these passages! We shall be changed not relocated!

Ah, now I understand. We don't meet Jesus in the air to ever be with the Lord because we are not relocated. Got it.

We do agree the first resurrection is at the end of the tribulation.

So, then how can this be the first resurrection?

When is your "translation" and what is the scripture that tells you so?

Consider the word translation. When used as I am using it, technically, change is built in. Why can I use translation the way that I am using it? Our location is "changed" from one place to another place. In this case, from earth to heaven (after metting Jesus in the air, we will be with Him in heaven forever.) The nice addition is that one can easily add putting on the immortal into the process. So, we are changed in more ways than one. Since everyone just wants to argue semantics, this linguist is getting tired.

There is a rapture. It is the translation of believers (asleep and alive) from earth to heaven, from mortal to immortal, etc. I do not see the first resurrection happening before the end of the tribulation. And you just said "We do agree the first resurrection is at the end of the tribulation". The rapture is a gathering. Hence I use the word translation. There is change involved. Translation includes the idea of change, even if highly nuanced. As such, I would prefer to note this nuance, but keep the change separate so as it is not lost... in translation (pun totally intended...) Again, I am not seeing a need for a resurrection at the rapture. And that is based in nuance. The rapture is still happening even if you are wrong. Of all the places to declare war, is this really the place? I believe there will be a rapture. I am not completely sure how it will play out. What I read in Paul speaks to a translation that includes a change from mortal to immortal for both those asleep and those alive. As such, I do not see resurrection in the passage. Could there be resurrection? Sure. I just don't see it in the passage. I also don't think it is something to throw out one's back over. The end result is the same. There is no difference. Both asleep and alive will be with Christ in the air forever as Paul says. Paul is just saying, don't worry about the dead, they will get a head start.

 

[TMSO]

I just read through the thread and I find at least three posters who have addressed the matter of the rapture being a translation or a resurrection. The two are not mutually exclusive. The rapture is a translation and a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:35-42, 50-54
But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body........ Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."


Resurrected and transformed. Both, not one or the other.

Translation means change. I emphasized change in location, however, the change from mortal to immortal is included in nuance. Resurrection just means, as we see in Revelation 20, to live again. We don't see live again here. That is why I said that I am unsure. Translation is blatantly present here, while resurrection is not. (Again, translation means change. Change of location, change from mortality to immortality, change from one language to another language, etc.) I never said there is no resurrection, I said I am not sure. As for Jesus descending, the rapture is not the second coming. He meets us in the air, and thus (in the air) we will forever be with the Lord. Do understand that a thesis on a subject is not usually a few paragraphs, but more the size of a book. The thing to emphasize about the rapture is... we will be changed.

 

[TMSO]

I believe I have already answered that. It means "changed." I am wondering why you ask because you have just as much access to the text and just as much access to the Greek, and just as much access to the comparative uses in scripture as I do. The other poster claimed no one had said anything about this (which is not true) and scripture was provided that proves the point and ANYONE questioning the matter can (and should) instantly investigate (and not depend on my posts. The person who will best convince the person is the person themself. Yes?

LOL! Being moved from the grave to heaven does. So too does being moved from earth to heaven. Those are both also changes; changes from one location to another. There is also the changed from having been saved and being saved to the completion of salvation that occurs only with our resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 covers all those bases.

Besides, I am not convinced the other poster's definition is correct. It is clear from the claim no one has addressed his concern there is a problem with either reading, comprehension, bias confirmation, or all three. The opening statement in Post 59 has been disproven (with explicitly stated scripture) and the same post adds things to scripture nowhere stated in the text cited. That proof has been ignored. Post 63 references scripture but, again, uses the reference selectively. Post 67 moves the goals posts by reporting Jesus meets us in the air but doesn't come to earth when it was previously stated, "Jesus does not descend for the rapture." He's contradicted himself. Post 67 tries to make the Father the one sitting on the throne in Psalm 110 because of his interpretation of Revelation 21 in abject neglect and denial of the fact Revelation 3 states Jesus is sitting on the Father's throne! He argues over the word "end" in Post 71 and obfuscates the fact both texts in question plainly stated the end was coming in the New Testament era.

In other words, every single one of his posts if fatally flawed in two ways: both exegetically and logically.

So, I am not sure why you think TMSO's posts matter. They are not the kind of handling of scripture, nor the kind of reasoning anyone should consider veracious, nor by which anyone should be persuaded. I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to pick up a copy of D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" to better understand how flawed those posts are because he explains how some of the very common ways folks handle scripture is really just fallacy.




As far as the point about "translation" goes, 1 Corinthians 15 covers all the bases broached so far and several posters have noted this in one way or another.

I will note that my main point is that I am not sure there is resurrection involved, or that it has to be. That has been my only point. The rapture is happening, I just don't think all the mechanism are covered in scripture, and don't believe they have to be. You do understand my point with translation, though I did not go far enough to explain just how far the definition of "change" can go. I only spoke of the change of location, and not how it can also cover the other changes Paul speaks of all together.

So, I am not saying there is no resurrection, but questioning whether there is using other scripture. I personally don't believe it is any kind of hill one can/should die on. It is telling that this didn't produce discussion, but attack. This should have been a discussion of how resurrection could be involved without violating the understanding that the first resurrection takes place after the rapture, and how those who take part in the first resurrection are described before the resurrection happens. Discussion. Again, not a hill anyone should die on.

 

[Josheb]

Translation means change. I emphasized change in location, however, the change from mortal to immortal is included in nuance. Resurrection just means, as we see in Revelation 20, to live again. We don't see live again here. That is why I said that I am unsure. Translation is blatantly present here, while resurrection is not. (Again, translation means change. Change of location, change from mortality to immortality, change from one language to another language, etc.) I never said there is no resurrection, I said I am not sure. As for Jesus descending, the rapture is not the second coming. He meets us in the air, and thus (in the air) we will forever be with the Lord. Do understand that a thesis on a subject is not usually a few paragraphs, but more the size of a book. The thing to emphasize about the rapture is... we will be changed.

That is incorrect in a number of ways. Even though I still live here on earth my location has been changed, not just my disposition.

As for Jesus descending, the rapture is not the second coming.

That is incorrect and you have yet to prove that position true.

This is perhaps THE most important point in this thread because the separation of the rapture from the return of Jesus is held by only one specific theology, one specific eschatological point of view and that particular end-times view parts ways with everyone else on this particular point of view. Historicists, Amils, Post Mils, and Idealists ALL hold the rapture and the second return to be synonymous. Only the Dispensationalist (and the similarly modern futurist views) think otherwise.

Dispensationalism was invented in the 19th century. It is less than 200 years old. It is very popular nowadays, but it is not remotely historical or orthodox. It departs in many other ways from the longer held, historical and orthodox positions held in Christian thought, doctrine and practice.

In other words, you (along with any other modern futurist), not everyone else in this thread, hold the outlying point of view. You cannot treat the rapture/return division as a given everyone else must accept.

I emphasized change in location, however, the change from mortal to immortal is included in nuance.

I know. I read the posts. I covered all the bases of location and disposition and "nuance." I also pointed out the logically fallacious nature of separating location from disposition. It's a false dichotomy. None of it has been addressed with any substance; none of it disproven.

I recommend the following:

Define your terms. Define them as you want us to understand them so that we can discuss them with common meaning.
Cite the specific scripture that support that definition and try as best you can to use scripture that explicitly states that definition rather than verses that are eisegetically interpreted to "mean" that definition when the verses themselves do not actually state that definition.
In the absence of verses explicitly stating those definitions, be forthcoming and acknowledge, "That is how I interpret that verse." Do it so that everyone knows this is an interpretive view. Do it so that everyone also knows this isn't universal or absolute but is, instead, a matter of differences in point of view. Do not treat what is subjective or doctrinally informed as objective, universal, or absolute.

If you do those three things then everyone will have a better discussion and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to prove at least some of what you believe correct because...

Resurrection just means, as we see in Revelation 20, to live again.

The resurrection in Revelation 20 is a change in both location and disposition. Thinking otherwise disproves all your posts. All of them.

Revelation 20:5-6
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Those are the only two mentions of "resurrection" in chapter 20. That text explicitly states the first resurrection involve the dead coming back to life. That is a change in both disposition (death to life) and location (the grave to no longer being in the grave). Even if this is taken metaphorically then the resurrected individuals are still relocated from a place wherein they were dead in sin to alive in Christ. Inferentially, these people are said to reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

The problem is that only Dispensationalism thinks Jesus is here on earth for those thousand years. This, again, where you are the outlier here. The Premillennial view (both Historicist and Dispensational) is the outlier here. The Premillennial view is interpretive, it is inferential. The Amil, Postmil, and Idealist are all going to say Jesus is not on earth during the 1000-year reign and one of the reasons they hold that position is because nowhere in the entire chapter of Revelation does it explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth!!! Look that up. Read through the entire chapter a couple of times and verify whether or not Jesus is explicitly stated to physically be on earth ANYWHERE in the entire chapter.

If Jesus is reigning in heaven for those thousand years, then so too are those resurrected in verses 5-6. Their location has been changed.

You do NOT get to treat the outlying view as a given. You must PROVE any particular position - such as the rapture being separate from the resurrection OR the resurrection of Rev. 20 being one earth - before you can treat everyone's posts as incorrect. Prove it; do not assume it.









And for this reason, I strongly encourage you to do a little research on the history of the Church and how end times views changed and why.

 

[Josheb]

I will note that my main point is that I am not sure there is resurrection involved, or that it has to be. That has been my only point. The rapture is happening, I just don't think all the mechanism are covered in scripture, and don't believe they have to be.

I am sure. So too are several of the other posters. The rapture is happening, but not the way you think and just because you do not believe all the mechanisms are covered in scripture does not mean your posts are correct or others do not better understand the matter.

You do understand my point with translation, though I did not go far enough to explain just how far the definition of "change" can go.

Don't expect anyone to understand what has not been adequately explained and don't assume a lack of understanding until you do. That sounds contradictory but it covers all the bases.

I only spoke of the change of location, and not how it can also cover the other changes Paul speaks of all together.

Yep. And in the historical, orthodox, mainstream view of the rapture whereby it is viewed as the same event as our resurrection from the dead as described in 1 Corinthians 15, it's a change in many ways, both locational and dispositional. The same could be said of a separated rapture in different ways but that is neither the historical, orthodox, mainstream view held by most in Christendom and it's an interpretive position that can be question, if not blatantly disproven in many ways (such as the fact Jesus is never explicitly stated to physically live on earth in Revelation 20 and the fact Jesus does descend from heaven and meets folks in the air in the 1 Thessalonians 4).

 

[TMSO]

That is incorrect in a number of ways. Even though I still live here on earth my location has been changed, not just my disposition.

Again, as a prior linguist, you are giving me a major headache.

That is incorrect and you have yet to prove that position true.

This is perhaps THE most important point in this thread because the separation of the rapture from the return of Jesus is held by only one specific theology, one specific eschatological point of view and that particular end-times view parts ways with everyone else on this particular point of view. Historicists, Amils, Post Mils, and Idealists ALL hold the rapture and the second return to be synonymous. Only the Dispensationalist (and the similarly modern futurist views) think otherwise.

That is because you don't believe the rest of Revelation. There is no marriage banquet right? Jesus shows up with sack lunches for everyone. Even the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of the church avoiding the coming tribulation, and that is in the second century.

Dispensationalism was invented in the 19th century. It is less than 200 years old. It is very popular nowadays, but it is not remotely historical or orthodox. It departs in many other ways from the longer held, historical and orthodox positions held in Christian thought, doctrine and practice.

Preterism was invented in the 16th century, and unlike dispensationalism, it formed in a vacuum, or, in the mind of a Jesuit leader. The belief present in preterism did not exist prior. For example, for the whole early part of church history, it was accepted as fact that Revelation was written in 90AD, most probably around 96AD. It was also believed that Enoch and Elijah would be the two witnesses in Revelation, at a future time. Polycarp, Papis, Ignatius and Irenaeus were all futurists who believed in a future millennial kingdom for Israel. If you aren't sure, then you should read Eusebius Ecclesiatstical History of the Church, because he talks about it. (I know... I read it.)

In other words, you (along with any other modern futurist), not everyone else in this thread, hold the outlying point of view. You cannot treat the rapture/return division as a given everyone else must accept.

Consider this from the 4th century "Ephraem of Nisibis (306-373) Ephraem was an extremely important and prolific writer. Also known as Pseudo-Ephraem, he was a major theologian of the early Eastern (Byzantine) Church. His important sermon, “On the Last Times, the Antichrist and the End ofthe World,” (ca. 373) is preserved in four Latin manuscripts and is ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore.42 If not written by Ephraem, it is written by one greatly influenced by him.43 This Pseudo-Ephraem sermon declares the following: “All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come,and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.”44 Alexander offers an insightful comment on these words when he says, “This author, however, mentions another measure taken by God in order to alleviate the period of tribulation for his saints and for the Elect.”45

In this sermon, Pseudo-Ephraem develops an elaborate biblical eschatology,including a distinction between the rapture and the second coming of Christ. It describes the imminent rapture, followed by 3½ years of great tribulation under the rule of Antichrist, followed by the coming of Christ, the defeat of Antichrist, and the eternal state. His view includes a parenthesis between the fulfillment of Daniel’s sixty-nine weeks and his seventieth week in Daniel 9:24-27.46 Pseudo-Ephraem describes the rapture that precedes the tribulation as “imminent or overhanging.” 47

42 Alexande , The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition 136. The full text of the sermon may be found at or in Grant R.Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” in When the Trumpet Sounds (Eugene , Ore.: HarvestHouse, 1995) 109-15.
43Paul J. Alexander, “The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and theBeginnings of Joachimism,” in Prophecy and M illenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed.An n W illiams (Essex: Longman, 1980) 58 -95 .
44 Pseudo-Ephraem, On the Last Times 2.
45 Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition 210. For issues relating to the authorship,interpretation, and date of Pseudo-Ephraem, consult Demy and Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation” 311-13.
46Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement” 116-18.
47Pseudo-Ephraem, On the Last Times 2.

From James F. Stitzinger, "THE RAPTURE IN TWENTY CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION", The Master's Seminary Journal, Fall 2002

I know. I read the posts. I covered all the bases of location and disposition and "nuance." I also pointed out the logically fallacious nature of separating location from disposition. It's a false dichotomy. None of it has been addressed with any substance; none of it disproven.

Apparently you don't understand the word "translation". If disposition changes, that is covered by translation.

I recommend the following:

Define your terms. Define them as you want us to understand them so that we can discuss them with common meaning.

Only if you properly state the history of futurism, pretrib rapture, and premillennialism, as I have already shown that you have not done your due diligence.

 

[TMSO]

I am sure. So too are several of the other posters. The rapture is happening, but not the way you think and just because you do not believe all the mechanisms are covered in scripture does not mean your posts are correct or others do not better understand the matter.

True, but it does mean yours are wrong.

Don't expect anyone to understand what has not been adequately explained and don't assume a lack of understanding until you do. That sounds contradictory but it covers all the bases.

Yep. And in the historical, orthodox, mainstream view of the rapture whereby it is viewed as the same event as our resurrection from the dead as described in 1 Corinthians 15, it's a change in many ways, both locational and dispositional. The same could be said of a separated rapture in different ways but that is neither the historical, orthodox, mainstream view held by most in Christendom and it's an interpretive position that can be question, if not blatantly disproven in many ways (such as the fact Jesus is never explicitly stated to physically live on earth in Revelation 20 and the fact Jesus does descend from heaven and meets folks in the air in the 1 Thessalonians 4).

Why do you use logical fallacies to support your position? Appeal to the majority is a failure of an argument. When you define what is orthodox or mainstream, that again completely removes your argument from rationality. I understand that you don't believe Jesus has a physical second coming, and is therefore not on Earth for Revelation 20, after having been specifically stated to have returned (second coming) in Revelation 19. I understand. I also understand that I am beneath you, to be stepped on, with all your condescension. I got it. I'm beneath you. I'm not worthy to breathe in your presence. Again. Understood. Not worthy of a second thought, right?

 

[Josheb]

True, but it does mean yours are wrong.

ROTFLMBO!!!

Eighteen centuries of Christian thought, doctrine and practice are wrong and only the thing invented less than 200 years ago is correct. Is that your argument?

Why do you use logical fallacies to support your position?

Do not be childish. Baseless accusations are worthless. You have not proven a single fallacy exists. I did not argue your view is wrong because it is the minority view, and if that is what you understood then you misconstrued the posts and need to go back and re-read them. Scripture proves you wrong, not doctrine, and I posted the texts. If and when they are read exactly as written they prove your position incorrect. You stated Jesus does not descend. You had to correct that statement because scripture makes it clear he does descend. Example after example of blatant error have been corrected in this thread and now your response is, "Yes, it is true all of Christian history teaches something other than what modern futurism teaches but all of Christianity has all always been wrong and you're arguing fallaciously.

No, it is you who is arguing fallaciously.

Appeal to the majority is a failure of an argument.

I completely agree but that is not my argument. Go back and re-read the posts.

When you define what is orthodox or mainstream, that again completely removes your argument from rationality.

I did not define orthodoxy. Centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice formed by vigorous prayer and debate decide orthodoxy. When John Darby invented his theology (and its accompanying eschatology) he was vigorously resisted - even by those within his own sect - but he persevered, and others multiplied his followers. I can trace the entire history of Dispensationalism and modern futurism in a post (maybe two). I can trace the history explaining how it became so popular in a single post. I should not have to because every Christian in the forum should already know the history of their own arguments before they think to tell others how to think and what to believe.

You are on record stating "True, but..." You have just acknowledged the entire history of Christianity is different. The only logical implication is that all of Christianity has all always been wrong and only modern futurism is correct - not the other way around. This is the necessary conclusion because modern futurism holds beliefs that are wholly irreconcilable with everyone else. Either everyone else is wrong and only modern futurism is correct, or everyone else is correct and modern futurism is wrong. They both cannot be true because they teach irreconcilable positions.

I understand that you don't believe Jesus has a physical second coming,

No, you do not. If that is what you think I believe then you are wrong. I do believe Jesus will come again and do so bodily, physically. NOTHING I posted should be read to "spiritualize" or allegorize Jesus' return. You are just wrong to say that. If that is what you got from my posts then they were not correctly understood, and you need to go back and re-read them and read them as many times as it takes to correctly understand them. More importantly,

STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY POSTS I NEVER WROTE!

Please.

and is therefore not on Earth for Revelation 20,

That has nothing to do with Christ's return to earth. The only place the entire book of Revelation has Jesus coming to earth is Revelation 21. There is absolutely no explicit mention of Jesus physically coming to earth in chapter 20. None. This is not a doctrinal matter. It is wholly scripture and scripture alone. All you have to do to disprove it is to find the verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on the earth. Then everything I wrote about Rev. 20 will instantly be disproven. Your problem is there is no such verse. I, not you, am standing on exactly what is written, exactly as it is written without adding or subtracting a single letter to or from the text.

Jesus does not physically come too earth in Revelation 20.


Jesus is in heaven in Revelation 20. That means those resurrected in chapter 20 go to heaven if they are seated with him because that is where he is seated in that chapter. Just take out your Bible and read chapter 20 for yourself.

Then you will realize how much modern futurism as twisted and perverted God's word. It teaches things no Christian has ever believed and while there is a lot of diversity between the various eschatologies, only the Dispensational forms of end-times views abuse Revelation 20 to say he is physically on earth during the 1000 years. According to them all of Christianity has all always been wrong and only they are correct.

after having been specifically stated to have returned (second coming) in Revelation 19.

LOL! That is not what Revelation 19 states and when you make claims like that in your posts you need to back them up with scripture. Nowhere in chapter 19 does it explicitly state Jesus is physically on the earth. What it does state is that John saw the heavens opened and he saw armies of Christ assembled..... in heaven, and the armies of men assembled on earth (verses 11-19). The earth is mention only twice in that chapter (verses 2 and 19) and neither explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth.

Get out your Bible right now and read the entire chapter and verify what I just wrote. Prove me wrong. Post the verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on earth.

If and when you do not and cannot find that verse say so in your next post. Do the right thing and come out with honesty and forthcomingness and say, "You're correct, Josh, neither chapter 19 or chapter 20 actually explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth!"

Then we can talk about how and why it is modern futurism has twisted and perverted God's word to make it say something it nowhere states AND why they do so in direct contradiction and direct opposition to what all of Christendom has always taught for twenty centuries.

I understand.

Apparently, you do not because you have made claims about what I believe that are not true, and you've made claims about scripture that are like wise simply, plainly, demonstrably not true. I do believe Jesus will bodily return to earth and nowhere do chapters 19 and 20 explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth.

I also understand that I am beneath you.......

When you make statements like that you prove yourself beneath everyone and not worthy of discussion. Get your head out of the sand and look at scripture. Read chapters 19 and 20 and quote the verse(s) that explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth. Do it now. Your next post need be only one verse long. Just one explicit statement and you instantly prove me wrong. One verse.

Absent that one verse your next post should be, "Yes, I see that what you say is true and correct. There is not one verse in either chapter that explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth and it is not until chapter 21 that Jesus is explicitly said to come to earth."

Either post the verse or post an acknowledgment no such verse exists.

 

[Josheb]

Again, as a prior linguist, you are giving me a major headache.

That is because you don't believe the rest of Revelation.

And as a false accuser you give me a headache, so we're even.

I am one of the most literal readers of scripture you will find in this forum. I am one of the most exacting exegetes you will find in this forum. Your accusations are baseless and fallacious. The facts of scripture are that nowhere in chapters 19 or 20 of Revelation does the text of scripture ever, anywhere explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth. It is not until chapter 21 that he is stated to come to earth.

 

[Arial]

And as a false accuser you give me a headache, so we're even.

I am one of the most literal readers of scripture you will find in this forum. I am one of the most exacting exegetes you will find in this forum. Your accusations are baseless and fallacious. The facts of scripture are that nowhere in chapters 19 or 20 of Revelation does the text of scripture ever, anywhere explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth. It is not until chapter 21 that he is stated to come to earth.

 

[Carbon]

The “Rapture” Doctrine​

One of the most crushing arguments against the modern-day “Rapture” doctrine is 1st Corinthians 15. Of the 58 verses contained in this chapter, 85 percent of them deal with the resurrection. Yet, in all of these verses, not once does Paul allude to Jesus descending twice more. Listen to verse 23. “But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes [referring to one advent], those who belong to him. Then the end will come.”

It might interest you to know that “will come” is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Literally, the verse reads, “Then the end.” End of what? End of time and tangible matter as we know them today. When that occurs, Jesus “hands over the kingdom [reign] to God the Father after he has destroyed all [earthly] dominion, authority, and power. For he must [now] reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (verses 24 & 25).

Our “Rapture” enthusiasts say that Jesus will suddenly appear in the air to snatch away from the earth and take to heaven all living saints, as well as the resurrected bodies of those believers who have died. At the “Rapture,” Jesus “snatches up the church” only. But at “The Revelation,” when He is revealed once again, He will “return with the church”and bring an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon.” A thousand-year earthly reign will then commence, as per the doctrine. Consequently, we have two future advents. It makes little difference whether Jesus’ feet will touch the earth during His first advent (“Rapture”). The fact is, there are two advents scheduled. The scriptures speak of only one.

If Jesus is to descend twice more, as our “Rapture” brothers claim, please tell me why Paul failed to communicate that fact when he wrote at length about the resurrection? He alludes to one advent (verse 23), not two. He had every opportunity to say something about a second advent. He is completely silent on the subject! You see, if the scriptures fail to teach that Jesus will descend twice more, the contemporary “Rapture” doctrine falls short of evidence. And when a doctrine falls short of evidence, it is most likely of man and not of God. The “Rapture” doctrine falls short of evidence. It simply ain’t there!

Jesus is now reigning over new Israel, the redeemed society. The new Israel was not meant to be earthly and external, as earthly kingdoms are, and her King was to reign in the hearts of His subjects, not from a throne constructed from earthly stones and materialistic hardware. Jesus states it far more exquisitely, “The kingdom [reign] of God does not come visibly, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom [reign] of God is within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Jesus reigns from His throne in heaven and in the hearts of His subjects, not in earthly Jerusalem at a future date. For then people would be able to say, “Here it is,” or “There it is.” And Jesus says this will not be the case!​

I believe there will be a rapture, but not according to the pre-mill understanding. This rapture will happen at the Lord's Second Coming. Then it is judgment.

 

[TMSO]

ROTFLMBO!!!

Eighteen centuries of Christian thought, doctrine and practice are wrong and only the thing invented less than 200 years ago is correct. Is that your argument?

No. However that attempt to poison the well is a nice touch. I see you are expanding your horizons.

Do not be childish. Baseless accusations are worthless.

Yes, such as what you wrote above.

You have not proven a single fallacy exists.

I did. You don't get to judge yourself as righteous. Can you show a single time in this whole comment that you actually deal with my argument. As you see above, you did not.

I did not argue your view is wrong because it is the minority view, and if that is what you understood then you misconstrued the posts and need to go back and re-read them.

I went back to read it. And... you did. However, I noticed that I failed to pick up on the well poisoning. The bearing of false witness.

Scripture proves you wrong, not doctrine, and I posted the texts. If and when they are read exactly as written they prove your position incorrect. You stated Jesus does not descend.

You should read all of what I wrote, because I clarified my statement as descend to Earth. I didn't think that you would need to be led by the hand through everything I wrote, and that you would be understanding of what was said.

You had to correct that statement because scripture makes it clear he does descend. Example after example of blatant error have been corrected in this thread and now your response is, "Yes, it is true all of Christian history teaches something other than what modern futurism teaches but all of Christianity has all always been wrong and you're arguing fallaciously.

"STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY POSTS I NEVER WROTE!" I did a search, and you are the only one that pops up saying that... about me.

No, it is you who is arguing fallaciously.

I will channel you for a moment... no, I haven't argued fallaciously at all. (I am also rubber, so that didn't stick.)

I completely agree but that is not my argument. Go back and re-read the posts.

I completely agree, now that I realize it was poisoning the well, which is even more of a failure of an argument. When one can't stand on the argument, poison someone else's.

I did not define orthodoxy. Centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice formed by vigorous prayer and debate decide orthodoxy. When John Darby invented his theology (and its accompanying eschatology) he was vigorously resisted - even by those within his own sect - but he persevered, and others multiplied his followers. I can trace the entire history of Dispensationalism and modern futurism in a post (maybe two).

Wow, you even underlined and italacized your fallacy there. Nice. BTW Dispensationalism and futurism ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

I can trace the history explaining how it became so popular in a single post. I should not have to because every Christian in the forum should already know the history of their own arguments before they think to tell others how to think and what to believe.

Ahem I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST!!! Is that in big enough print for you? I never knew the history of dispensationalism, because I'm not one. I would think that you could reach that conclusion without help. Have you heard of Brother Dulcimo? No? Have you read the eschatological writings of the Jews pre-Christ? No? Have you researched this at all? (Eschatology.) I have a little, and it seems that everything I have researched, you know nothing about, and it runs all the way back to the first century. (And prior, if you include the little I heard about pre-Christ eschatology of the Israelites.)

You are on record stating "True, but..." You have just acknowledged the entire history of Christianity is different. The only logical implication is that all of Christianity has all always been wrong and only modern futurism is correct - not the other way around.

I have not. For instance, I have claimed that the two witnesses in Revelation are Elijah and Enoch. That belief is actually the first many centuries of the church, and you can find it clearly stated in the pseudo ephraem sermons. In all the manuscripts. You will also find the Anti-Christ there in relation to Revelation and the beast. None of this is new. You will also find that the first many centuries of the church agreed with Irenaeus that Revelation was written in the 90s AD. The earlier date came around the time preterism came out in the 17th century from the Jesuits. It comes from Catholicism.

This is the necessary conclusion because modern futurism holds beliefs that are wholly irreconcilable with everyone else. Either everyone else is wrong and only modern futurism is correct, or everyone else is correct and modern futurism is wrong. They both cannot be true because they teach irreconcilable positions.

Another appeal to the majority. "Either everyone else is wrong..." The appeal is to say that everyone else is right, and this little minority group is wrong. They can't both be right. How dare the minority believe they are.

No, you do not. If that is what you think I believe then you are wrong. I do believe Jesus will come again and do so bodily, physically. NOTHING I posted should be read to "spiritualize" or allegorize Jesus' return. You are just wrong to say that. If that is what you got from my posts then they were not correctly understood, and you need to go back and re-read them and read them as many times as it takes to correctly understand them. More importantly,

STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY POSTS I NEVER WROTE!

Please.

That has nothing to do with Christ's return to earth. The only place the entire book of Revelation has Jesus coming to earth is Revelation 21.

Revelation 19:
"11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He [e]had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in [f]fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a [g]sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS."

This is... JESUS. How can we be sure? Think John 1:1, and see "His name is called The Word of God." John knows exactly what connection He is making.

" 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh."

Where is all of this? On Earth, obviously. Unless somehow all these armies were translated (hehe) to heaven for Jesus to kill. And then the birds as well so they could have their fill of their flesh. Jesus is on Earth at the end of Revelation 19. He has come. (record scratch) Except you don't believe that.

There is absolutely no explicit mention of Jesus physically coming to earth in chapter 20. None. This is not a doctrinal matter. It is wholly scripture and scripture alone. All you have to do to disprove it is to find the verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on the earth.

Done.

Then everything I wrote about Rev. 20 will instantly be disproven.

Done.

Your problem is there is no such verse. I, not you, am standing on exactly what is written, exactly as it is written without adding or subtracting a single letter to or from the text.

Your problem is that you deny the existence of that verse, which I have quoted.

Jesus does not physically come too earth in Revelation 20.

That is because He is already on Earth. Revelation 19.