The Rapture: Pre-tribulational or Post-tribulational?

[Ken Morgan]

This forum has been somewhat slow getting started, so I thought I'd try to get some topics going. 

Here's the first issue I'll throw out there; I may start more threads as time goes on.

So far, there is nothing on the "Rediscovering the Bible" Web site on the issue of the rapture of the church. However, there are two popular positions on this issue called pre-tribulationism and post-tribulationism. I'd like to hear from you: why not post a comment and let us know--

(1) if you are not aware of the issue and would like to learn about it
(2) if you are undecided
(3) your best argument for your position

I encourage you to join the discussion. However, at the very least, VOTE!

[Ken Morgan]

I'll get the ball rolling myself. Here is one of the best arguments for a post-tribulational rapture, an almost unanswerable argument. It is based on 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

Part I of the Argument

Paul establishes the main subject of this section in verse 1:

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers..."

The subject of this passage is the second advent of Christ. That event is described by two phrases: "the coming [Greek, parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our being gathered to him." These two phrases describe a single event, not two. In the Greek the  two phrases are connected with kai ("and"), while only the first phrase has the definite article ("the"). This Greek construction implies that the two phrases describe the same event.

Next, note that Paul explicitly ties this "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" with the "rapture" (Latin for "caught up") described in 1 Thess. 4:17 by the phrase "and our being gathered to him."

Therefore, I submit that 2 Thess. 2:1-12 describes the same "coming" as 1 Thess. 4:13-18.

Part II of the Argument

Now follow the text down to verse 8: "...the Lord Jesus will...destroy [the lawless one] by the splendor of his coming" (same Greek word, parousia).

I conclude that the coming of the Lord Jesus that gathers us to him is the coming that destroys the Antichrist.

This is a clear, systematic, didactic passage whose very purpose is to discuss the second advent. It is legitimate to use a theological system to interpret obscure passages, but that is not what we have here. Systematic and didactic passages determine theology; they are not interpreted by theology. There is no hint whatsoever in the text to indicate that Paul has two different "comings" in mind in v. 1 and v. 8. Therefore, "our being gathered to him" is the "coming" at the end of the tribulation that destroys the Antichrist.

Now I'd like to hear from others...

[ltaff1]

Okay, that was a really good argument for post-tribulation rapture. But aren't there also really good arguments for pre-tribulation rapture? It would seem that if there was going to be a good debate, both sides should be shown. Maybe the point was to get someone else to post pre-tribulation rapture arguments. This is something that confuses me and I need to study harder before I were to make any viable argument on.

The church I attend does teach and believe in post-tribulation rapture. But I'm not yet convinced. As unstudied on this as I am....I hope I don't sound like an idiot here. But doesn't the Bible also say that after the tribulation that we will all return to the earth for 1000 years? I know I should be quoting scripture on this...so I'll look it up and re-post later. But what I'm saying is in response to the first argument....if it does in fact say that after the tribulation we will all return to the earth for 1000 years, couldn't that be the time that Jesus's "coming" destroys the Antichrist?

Well, I'll look it up and see...Revelation is difficult for me to understand...so difficult for me to argue. I'm not really arguing so much as just asking??? Anybody got some help?

[Ken Morgan]

Okay, that was a really good argument for post-tribulation rapture. But aren't there also really good arguments for pre-tribulation rapture? It would seem that if there was going to be a good debate, both sides should be shown. Maybe the point was to get someone else to post pre-tribulation rapture arguments.

I'm so glad to see a post on this thread! Maybe this is just the beginning of "a good debate."

There are arguments used to support the pretribulation view, but as you suspected, my hope here "was to get someone else to post pre-tribulation rapture arguments." Then the debate would be on!

But what I'm saying is in response to the first argument....if it does in fact say that after the tribulation we will all return to the earth for 1000 years, couldn't that be the time that Jesus's "coming" destroys the Antichrist?

That's an interesting question. The passage you're thinking of is probably 1 Thess. 4:13-18, but it doesn't say that "we" will return with Christ. The passage says that "those who have fallen asleep in him" will return with him. Whenever this event occurs, the passage makes clear that living members of the church will still be on the earth at the time of that advent.

The issue, therefore, is whether 1 Thess. 4:16-17 and 2 Thess. 2:1 refer to the same advent. I submit that they do because both 1 Thess. 4:16-17 and 2 Thess. 2:1 portray their described advent as the hope of the church. Then, since it is exegetically impossible that 2 Thess. 2:1 and 2:8 refer to different advents, the hope of the church must be the advent that destroys the Antichrist referred to in verse 8, namely, the great and glorious advent at the end of the tribulation described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19.

So, then, at the second advent, the dead in Christ return with him, we who are alive are "changed" into our glorious  bodies (1 Cor. 15:51-52), and the 1000-year Millennial reign of Christ on earth begins.

Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a really good discussion. 

[Ken Morgan]

In the first post of this thread, I stated that "so far, there is nothing on the "Rediscovering the Bible" Web site on the issue of the rapture of the church." I'm happy to announce that is no longer true.

First, we've posted an entire book, The Hope of Christ's Second Coming, by Samuel P. Tregelles, an early critique of pretribulationism by one of the most learned scholars of the Nineteenth Century. It's a short book and well worth reading.

http://http://www.rediscoveringthebible.com/Tregelles.pdf

Second, there are a number of articles in Carol's daily devotional on the subject:

January 14: "Revelation and the First Resurrection" by Samuel P. Tregelles
May 1: "A Summary of Matthew 24" by S. D. Gordon
May 24: "The Pre-Tribulational Rapture" by Oswald J. Smith
August 17: "Sentiment and Emotion" by Samuel P. Tregelles
September 1: "The Lord's Coming" by Alexander Reese
September 2: "Tribulation Arguments Considered" by Samuel P. Tregelles
September 16: "The Pre-Tribulation Rapture" by John J. Scruby
September 17: "Matthew 24 Intended for Christians" by Frank H. White
September 23: "Suffering an Honor for the Christian" by Henry W. Frost
September 29: "The Flood a Type of the Day of the Lord" by John J. Scruby
November 7: "The Fig Tree Generation" by F. F. Bruce
December 4: "The Second Coming" by Louis Berkhof

Simply go to the Devotional index and select any particular day.

http://http://www.rediscoveringthebible.com/InsightsIndex.html

[Ken Morgan]

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 presents yet a second problem for the pretribulational rapture theory. (For the first problem, see my April 6, 2008, post above.)

According to verse 2, the Thessalonian church had received some kind of report or letter telling them "that the day of the Lord has already come."

If the rapture is to occur before the tribulation, Paul's answer should have been, "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the church is first caught up to meet the Lord in the air" (compare verse 3 with 1 Thess. 4:17). But that is not what Paul told the Thessalonians in verse 3.

However, the problem for a pretribulational rapture becomes even more difficult by what Paul does say. He gives them two events or signs that must first occur before the day of the Lord comes: the great apostasy and the appearance of the Antichrist, the man of sin (verse 3). This man of sin will stand in the temple of God and proclaim that he himself is God (verse 4).

The fact that these two events must precede the day of the Lord was intended to prove to the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord had not yet come. Why would they serve as proof to them? Because at the time of this writing they had not seen either event. Pauls's argument would be meaningless unless they could have seen them. Therefore, if the church will see the man of sin, and thereby know that the day of the Lord is about to begin, then it must still be on the earth when this man makes his appearance.

[dougl]

If there were a post trib rapture, then why do the Jews in Zechariah 14 escape through a valley created when the Lord touches down on the Mt. of Olives, and not be raptured with the rest of the believers? 

If the rapture were post trib, then those same Jews should be raptured with the rest of the believers, because it is during the second half of the 7 years that the Jews have the testimony of Jesus Revelation 12:17.   Also Jesus said he is not going to return until the Jews say "blessed is he who come in the name of the Lord."

Doug L.