The rapture can be explained as possibly being the same as what happened to Israel and Egypt. About half way through the plagues, God separated Goshen from Egypt, and the judgements (his wrath) only fell upon Egypt, not upon Goshen. He did not pour out His wrath on His chosen people. This would be a multiple fulfillment scenario, of which there are MANY in the Old Testament which deal with both Christ's first and second coming. Moses and the rock is a multiple fulfillment instance where it showed Christ's first coming as a servant (Moses is to strike the rock, as one would strike a servant), and the second coming (Moses was to speak to the rock, as one does not hit a King, one speaks to the King.)
The Rapture
- Thread starter Carbon
- Start date
What he is talking about are those who are taken to final judgement, not a rapture.
And that is judged by your personal interpretation, correct?
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 2,928
- Reaction score
- 308
- Points
- 83
Some notes; you are generally on the right track.
1, The taken in Mt 24 is a bad thing. Read the whole allusion. The flood took away. We prob don't want that.
2, To be clear, you (and I) are a-D'ist-millenial. That is, they have it pegged after the tribulation and it falls apart and there is judgement and then the NHNE. Well, since the 1st page of the Rev says these things are happening shortly, it would make more sense (like you and I think) to view the many Judaic events of the Rev as during that time, followed by a 'very long reign' of Christ, during which there seems to be suffering and martyrdom, and then the ending you mentioned, followed by the NHNE. That means we don't agree to a mill as D'ism defines it, but there is a 'very long reign.' One passage in the Rev even couples the reign with suffering.
One reason for seeing this reign currently is a (mis)understanding of Acts 2 about the resurrection-enthronement etc. Actually 2-4. All 3 of these locations are saying that His reign is an imperative thing; the nations need to hear that he deserves this earth and his title over it. This all rests squarely on Ps 2, 16, 110, and 118. This is in my book.
This is why there is the 'confusing' presence of the kingdom: 'you do not see outward markings of it' but it is 'near, at hand, among you.' Some people get awfully cross about this; 'how dare you talk about the kingdom being here; haven't you seen the news?' But the apostles were not saying he is reigning, but that he is to be honored as King. Very different things. People are adamant that the 'enthronement' in Acts 2:30, 31 is future-Davidic. But the grammar precludes this, as do Ch 3 and 4's teaching.
3, the actual timing of the NT removal raises the 'delay' question. I'm convinced the apostles expected the world to end right after the destruction of Jerusalem. That's another book. But a removal didn't occur as the city was destroyed; instead there was a pause in the siege when many believers left due to Luke 21's specific warning. Obviously we are all here and there has been a delay, like Mt 24, Mk 13 and 2 Pet 3 say.
But I have over 1,000 posts. That's 0.043%.
Is the principle untrue?
That's all that matters.
The number of times it is stated is a testimony to the frequency of which eschatology in disagreement with apostolic teaching is being stated.
Last edited:
By your understanding or someone elses?
You mean the number of times that you have disagreed with other people.
The rapture is explained by the apostle (1 Th 4:16-17) who received his revelation from Jesus directly (2 Co 12:1-8).
It is a catching up to meet the Lord in the air at his second coming for the final judgment, and descending to the earth with him to assist in that judgment.
But the apostles John, Paul and Matthew, who are our authority for doctrine, teach differently in the following:
Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
(The saints are caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds, whereupon they descend with him to earth for the Final Judgment.)
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-33).
So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture is (occurs at the time of) the judgment:
the last day = resurrection = rapture = second coming = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)
(and the resurrection being in the last day with the judgment of the sheep and goats--all mankind,
thereby making only one resurrection. . .of all mankind).
If one's personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8) does not locate the rapture with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time, that interpretation is not in agreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching, thereby making it in error, for Scripture does not contradict itself.
That is judged by authoritative apostolic teaching, as in the above post (#656) by John, Paul and Matthew.
Is the principle of "authoritative NT apostolic teaching" true?
For the NT people of God, what supersedes apostolic teaching?
If the principle is true, why the objection to it.
If my disagreement coincides with that principle, that would be a yes.
That is not what the rapture is. The rapture, as taught by premillennialism, is the removal of the church from Earth before God pours out His judgement, as mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas from around 170AD. It is not His second coming which happens at the end of the Tribulation when Jesus fulfills Zechariah 12 and Zechariah 14.
Which is judged by your personal interpretation. You gave us your interpretation and then say that any response contrary to your interpretation runs against apostolic teaching... as you interpret/judge it.
Because it is your interpretation.
For instance, you say that that Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16). This verse does not necessarily mean that they are located at the same time. That is your interpretation.
"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."
I can see a separation between the dead in Christ who have to rise first and the return of Jesus with the sound of a trumpet. These could be two separate returns.
The key word in 1 Thes 4:16 is the word "and". Specifically, the second "and". In Greek this word is Kai. Kai can be translated as "and, but, also or indeed". So, it can be interpreted using the word "but". Though it still says the same thing even if we use "and". The word "but" can make it a little easier to understand. So, the verse says, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, but the dead in Christ will rise first."
So, the question is, "who are the dead in Christ". I believe the dead in Christ are talked about in the first resurrection in Rev 20:4. These are only the martyrs who were beheaded. They were killed for their testimony of Christ. No other person will be raised. These dead in Christ will rise first and then reign for 1000 years from Jerusalem with Christ. This is His first return.
Now, 1000 years does not mean indefinitely. So, it has and end. After the 1000 years, satan is then set free and seems to be that he rules the world so much so that his army surround Jerusalem. So, I do not think that Jesus is here at this time. Then, at the very end, Christ will come with a loud trumpet blast and then, everyone, small and great, dead and alive, believer and non-believer will meet the Lord in the clouds and go to the Great White Throne judgement.
I know that you will say that this does not match the authoritative NT apostolic teaching of Matthew, John or Paul.
Like I said, I have seen how you argue in other forums and in reality, you believe that you could never be wrong.
Well said.
Even premillennialists understand that this may or may not support the rapture. Why are you dead set on it? There is also the historic tradition of the rapture, which, while not a mainstream belief, was taught. However, where it appears, most seem to say that it will occur 3 1/2 years before the end of the tribulation, which for us would mean, mid-trib. (Pre-wrath?)
"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40. The last day being the day of Judgement.
And also, "Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” John 11:24. Once again, this is the last day. Not beforehand.
And also, "Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” John 11:24. Once again, this is the last day. Not beforehand.
If you read the very first sentence I wrote, without adding or removing from it, as you seem to do with eschatology in what I have read at least, you will see that it says "Even premillennialists understand that this may or may not support the rapture." In other words, it appears that it could be, but it isn't concrete. It is used to support, but there are plenty out there who say it does not support it. The word for rapture does not appear in the passage. The Greek word is said to carry the meaning, but there are plenty who say it does not. (Not premillennialists, obviously.)
I believe it supports the rapture, however, it is not enough in and of itself, to say anything about the rapture, other than it is going to happen. So, there are pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib rapture beliefs. The ECFs spoke more to a mid-trib rapture, however, they didn't talk much about the tribulation to begin with.
The text is clear.
The Greek word harpazo is translated rapturo in the Latin and rapture in the English.
1 Th 1:16-17 is the harpazo.
There is absolutely nothing uncertain in that text.
That is Biblical ignorance, due to a besotted submergence of much of the church in prophetic riddles not clearly spoken (Nu 12:8), to the neglect of the clear authoritative apostolic teaching of the doctrine of Christ, and which neglect is doing great harm to the church.
However, I have shown more times than I care to count that this is not all the NT states regarding the time of the rapture.
The NT in the following clearly locates the rapture with the second coming, resurrection and final judgment.
It is incorrect to state there is nothing in the NT to support the meaning and time of the rapture, to wit:
Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture 1 Th 4:16-17. (See this text for the meaning of the rapture.)
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41).
(The saints are caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds, whereupon they descend with him to earth for the Final Judgment.)
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Mt 25:31-33).
So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture is (occurs at the time of) the judgment:
The above authoritative teachings of the apostles John, Paul and Matthew are plain and clear regarding the time of the rapture's occurrence, and their teaching is not in agreement with these personal interpretations of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8), and subject to more than one interpretation.
Last edited:
Similar threads
