50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[TheDivineWatermark]

Present indicative in "come" is a statement of fact that is presently existing. In this case, Paul is saying that the errant ones presently believe that Jesus had already come. It has nothing to do with their believing that the day of Jesus' coming continues indefinitely.

...Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

Well, I'm just trying to point out what Paul is saying about what false conveyors were [/or even 'potentially' could be] purporting (per v.2):

"[purporting] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]" (to which he provides the corrective)... what it was/is they're purporting is false info (don't believe them/their false info they're purporting [v.2], believe what *we* taught you [v.15])


...not something like "[if anyone comes to you] PRESENTLY *BELIEVING* [such-and-such (fill-in-the-blank with whatever you think that wrong "belief" was/is)... don't believe them...]"

IOW, the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" applies to the thing they said IS HERE / IS ALREADY PRESENT (and the PERFECT INDICATIVE form of this "G1764" word [which is not the word, or form of the word, "COME"... but "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE" - https://biblehub.com/greek/1764.htm ] just means that this is not saying "IS AT HAND / SOON TO TAKE PLACE," but rather, that some "action [that was] COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►)." ... [purporting] it is PRESENT / ALREADY HERE... whatever it was they were falsely purporting (according to v.2 "the day of the Lord" is, as they were purporting to be so...), and Paul's corrective "3 [it] NOT [will be present], if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."

[and... rk your understanding of his "be revealed" is that this occurs 3.5y prior to Christ's return, meaning, at the 2Th2:4 thing that he does; whereas *my* understanding of his "be revealed" is that it is at the 2Th2:9a's "whose COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / parousia]" point-in-time INSTEAD, meaning at the START of the 7 years (rather than 3.5y prior to trib-end-point, as you see it)... Thus (my point being) that when he IS "BE REVEALED," THAT is also *when* "the DOTL" WILL INDEED *be present* (corresponding precisely with the INFO supplied in Paul's previous letter: 1Th5:2-3 saying that "the DOTL *ARRIVES*" LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... Just like Jesus talked about those in His Olivet Discourse [that PRECEDE and LEAD UP TO His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19]... and which I'm pointing out ['the BoBPs'] are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6... of which Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 is saying are a part of "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]," that is, when these "things" take place, they will come to pass in a relatively short amount of time [i.e. the 7 years... the "FOR ONE WEEK" thing, per Dan9:27a[26b - re: 'the prince THAT SHALL COME,' et al])]



Hope that helps you see my perspective = )

 

[cv5]

Well I operate on the principle of if I don't know best to keep stum.
But your ironic quip has cut me to the quick, so ......

In the context Jeremiah would seem to be referring to the iron yoke

Jeremiah 28:13 Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron.14 For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.


So i would say this is long ago fulfilled

Oh...I wouldn't limit youself. Anybody could post HUNDREDS of OT prophecies proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the inevitable fact of the redemption of ethnic Israel to the LAND in the not too distant future.

Here is a couple from the NT.....

Luk 1:32 - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 - “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Also Luk 1:68-75

Those of us with a head on our shoulders realize that the "gap" of Dan9 is going to happen in the latter chapters. I mean you just cant miss it.
I mean its the focal point in the history of the universe after all....

 

[OldSage]

Oh...I wouldn't limit youself. Anybody could post HUNDREDS of OT prophecies proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the inevitable fact of the redemption of ethnic Israel to the LAND in the not too distant future.

Here is a couple from the NT.....

Luk 1:32 - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 - “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Also Luk 1:68-75

Those of us with a head on our shoulders realize that the "gap" of Dan9 is going to happen in the latter chapters. I mean you just cant miss it.
I mean its the focal point in the history of the universe after all....

I don't! It's such fun to let others open their mouths and leave no shadow of a doubt.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[re: "PERFECT INDICATIVE"] [...] but "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE" - https://biblehub.com/greek/1764.htm ] just means that this is not saying "IS AT HAND / SOON TO TAKE PLACE," but rather, that some "action [that was] COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►)." ... [purporting] it is PRESENT / ALREADY HERE.

...boiled-down version:

the "perfect indicative" of the G1764 word just means they were saying "it is present / already here," RATHER than their saying "it is AT HAND / SOON to occur" (but hasn't yet).

 

[VCO]

Couldn't agree more

But still we keep ready at all times.


Matthew 25:13 (NCV)
13 “So always be ready, because you don’t know the day or the hour the Son of Man will come.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hope that helps you see my perspective = )

Could you please explain what "the coming of our Lord" in v.1 means?

And what "our being gathered to Him" means in v.1?

In all your posts and embellishments, I still don't know what you think these 2 phrases in v.1 mean.

Thanks.

 

[Mem]

Just trying to calibrate positions and checking to see if I am following the sequence of events... First, According to DWR correctly, or pre-trib rather I should say,... 1) the rapture, 2) the revealing of the man of sin, 3) the concurrent tribulation and wrath... ?

 

[cv5]

Correct....

 

[Mem]

ok, good, ty cv5

Second, According to post-trib, randyk et. al, sequence of events: 1) concurrent falling away and tribulation, 2) revealing of the man sin, and 3) concurrent rapture and wrath...?

 

[Mem]

Also, are these synonymous; pre-trib>post-millennial and post-trib>pre-millennial? trying to keep all these pre's and post's straight :/

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[...] examples don't work for removing resurrected and raptured believers from earth.

[not that I agree with Abs's take on it...] I'm wanting to see if I *get* what you are trying to say, here ^ ...

... are you saying that it is your understanding that "rapture / harpazo / harpagēsometha / snatch / caught up / -away [G726]" (in the 1Th4:17 verse) does NOT mean we'll be "caught up TO [/ UNTO] THE MEETING OF THE LORD *in the air*," but rather, to some other location ON THE EARTH? (kinda like happened to Philip in Acts 8:39)?? Like, not exiting "from the earth" whatsoever, only like a "relocation [elsewhere] ON THE EARTH" kind of thing?

_____

EDIT: NVM! I'm sure I've MIS-read your intentions... (was getting this mixed up with your suggestion that we only "go up" temporarily for a moment of time, and return to the earth pretty much in one continuous motion, "UP-then-down")

MY APOLOGIES for misunderstanding this post of yours! NIX THIS POST of mine! LOL

 

[randyk]

Well, I'm just trying to point out what Paul is saying about what false conveyors were [/or even 'potentially' could be] purporting (per v.2):

"[purporting] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]" (to which he provides the corrective)... what it was/is they're purporting is false info (don't believe them/their false info they're purporting [v.2], believe what *we* taught you [v.15])


...not something like "[if anyone comes to you] PRESENTLY *BELIEVING* [such-and-such (fill-in-the-blank with whatever you think that wrong "belief" was/is)... don't believe them...]"

IOW, the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" applies to the thing they said IS HERE / IS ALREADY PRESENT (and the PERFECT INDICATIVE form of this "G1764" word [which is not the word, or form of the word, "COME"... but "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE" - https://biblehub.com/greek/1764.htm ] just means that this is not saying "IS AT HAND / SOON TO TAKE PLACE," but rather, that some "action [that was] COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►)." ... [purporting] it is PRESENT / ALREADY HERE... whatever it was they were falsely purporting (according to v.2 "the day of the Lord" is, as they were purporting to be so...), and Paul's corrective "3 [it] NOT [will be present], if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."

[and... rk your understanding of his "be revealed" is that this occurs 3.5y prior to Christ's return, meaning, at the 2Th2:4 thing that he does; whereas *my* understanding of his "be revealed" is that it is at the 2Th2:9a's "whose COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / parousia]" point-in-time INSTEAD, meaning at the START of the 7 years (rather than 3.5y prior to trib-end-point, as you see it)... Thus (my point being) that when he IS "BE REVEALED," THAT is also *when* "the DOTL" WILL INDEED *be present* (corresponding precisely with the INFO supplied in Paul's previous letter: 1Th5:2-3 saying that "the DOTL *ARRIVES*" LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... Just like Jesus talked about those in His Olivet Discourse [that PRECEDE and LEAD UP TO His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19]... and which I'm pointing out ['the BoBPs'] are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6... of which Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 is saying are a part of "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]," that is, when these "things" take place, they will come to pass in a relatively short amount of time [i.e. the 7 years... the "FOR ONE WEEK" thing, per Dan9:27a[26b - re: 'the prince THAT SHALL COME,' et al])]



Hope that helps you see my perspective = )

Well, it's inaccurate to say that my belief is that they thought the Son of Man had come 3.5 years prior to the end of the age. I never said that at all!

You say that my belief is that they thought he comes 3.5 years prior, and your belief is that they thought he comes 7 years prior, or at the start of the 7 years period. But we have different lengths of time for the "Great Tribulation," aka the reign of Antichrist. I believe it is 3.5 years, whereas you believe it lasts for 7 years. And I don't think they thought he comes 3.5 years prior at all!

So the present indicative form of "come" has nothing to do with at what point in time the thing happens, except that I never said the thing that happened took place 3.5 years prior. I'm not sure why you think I even said that?

What we're doing is mixing in too many issues of disagreement and so complicating things unnecessarily. Let's just deal with the present indicative form of "come."

As I said, when the thing that "comes" happens and for how long is irrelevant to the form of the verb. It is a *belief* we're talking about, and the belief is the thing that is present and continues. The thing that "comes" has already happened. It is what someone still believes happened.

I just wanted to clarify that *when* the thing happened, namely the claimed coming of Christ, is not said to be 3.5 or 7 years before the end of the age. Rather, Jesus said there would be false Christs and false prophets, referring even to his own generation. And they were there. And Paul was also here hearing about them.

It has nothing to do with any relationship with the Great Tribulation, and the Thessalonians were not said to be confused about that. They weren't confused about having to suffer--1 Thess. had also dealt adequately with the problem of Christian persecution and suffering.

So what was the real issue here? It was that some Christians held that they had experienced a form of Christ's return, and were now walking in that Kingdom power and authority. It was a false claim that was still being believed by them, and the Thessalonians had become confused by it.

So Paul informed them that no eschatological power is given by God until the actual Kingdom comes. We have power to witness to the Kingdom, but Kingdom authority in an eschatological sense is presently being withheld until the Kingdom actually comes. In this age we do a certain amount of suffering before we are given to apply our judgment on earth.

We are not to expect to acquire this Kingdom power until the power of Satan is finished in this present age. And that will happen when Christ comes back to defeat the Antichrist, who will be given all the authority of Satan.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

some "action [that was] COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►)." ... [purporting] it is PRESENT / ALREADY HERE... whatever it was they were falsely purporting (according to v.2 "the day of the Lord" is, as they were purporting to be so...)

...one more thought to add to this point ^ ...

... the thing they "[purported] IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE" is (according to the text of v.2) "[that] the day of the Lord [is present / is already here]"... and "the day of the Lord" is defined as:

"an earthly-located time-period in which MUCH will transpire over the course of a lengthy duration [consisting of 'judgments' and then 'blessing']"...

..."the day of the Lord" phrase is not defined as "the Lord Himself" (nor as "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" [event, at a particular point-in-time]).

No... "the day of the Lord" is an earthly-located *time-period* (of very lengthy duration, with MUCH transpiring WITHIN it).

 

[Mem]

Here are my sequence of events. And I'll try to be conscientious of my commas, brackets, and aside's in order to spare FreeGrace's frustration

1) Jacob's trouble happening until 48', but still catching grief up to this point. You have to admit, that would qualify as 'a time like no other'...but since 48, he's now 'in the barn,' to use a phrase from the game of euchre.

2) Man of sin enters stage and tribulation of the saints commences, provoking...

3) God's wrath and rescue (rapture) and Jacobs' restoration (since the one who deceives is bond for a millennium),

4)then the dead, who didn't have part in the first resurrection (and/or died by God's wrath) are raised when the millennium is done to be gather with the released dragon who deceived for his final assault the established kingdom of which

5)he is entirely routed and thrown into the lake along with the rest of God's enemies and,

6) the entire universe basks in God's glory as a new heaven and new earth...and,

7)REST

 

[OldSage]

Oh...I wouldn't limit youself. Anybody could post HUNDREDS of OT prophecies proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the inevitable fact of the redemption of ethnic Israel to the LAND in the not too distant future.

Here is a couple from the NT.....

Luk 1:32 - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 - “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Also Luk 1:68-75

Those of us with a head on our shoulders realize that the "gap" of Dan9 is going to happen in the latter chapters. I mean you just cant miss it.
I mean its the focal point in the history of the universe after all....

But you have neither disproved my view, nor, strangely, validated your own.

Regarding the gap - I guess it can be anything you want it to be- it's a gap, air, blank space on a page, after all.

So what bric-a-brac are you putting in your 7 year thing-on-the-end tribulation thingy?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

..."the day of the Lord" phrase is not defined as "the Lord Himself" (nor as "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" [event, at a particular point-in-time]).

No... "the day of the Lord" is an earthly-located *time-period* (of very lengthy duration, with MUCH transpiring WITHIN it).

... that (earthly-located) "time-period" is what they were claiming / purporting "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE," per v.2.





[and to which idea Paul is BRINGING the corrective TO BEAR on that false idea (which involves the SEQUENCE issue, by his use of the word "*FIRST*--ONE THING must take place *FIRST*!)]

 

[randyk]

...one more thought to add to this point ^ ...

... the thing they "[purported] IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE" is (according to the text of v.2) "[that] the day of the Lord [is present / is already here]"... and "the day of the Lord" is defined as:

"an earthly-located time-period in which MUCH will transpire over the course of a lengthy duration [consisting of 'judgments' and then 'blessing']"...

..."the day of the Lord" phrase is not defined as "the Lord Himself" (nor as "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" [event, at a particular point-in-time]).

No... "the day of the Lord" is an earthly-located *time-period* (of very lengthy duration, with MUCH transpiring WITHIN it).

I would suggest to you, brother, that the "day of the Lord" can indeed be viewed as a long period of time on earth, including the "Great Tribulation" period and the Millennial Reign of Christ. But it does not *have to be used* this way! And indeed, Paul is *not* using it this way.

I say that because Paul was specifically referring to the day in which *Christ returns for his Church." And so, it is a literal 24- hour day Paul is speaking of, in which Christ returns for his Church. He cannot, therefore, be speaking of a general "day" of long duration.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Well, it's inaccurate to say that my belief is that they thought the Son of Man had come 3.5 years prior to the end of the age. I never said that at all!

You say that my belief is that they thought he comes 3.5 years prior

I'm not saying "they thought" such a thing, at least not that I am aware of what I said. = D

When you say ^ "that they thought," who are you meaning by the word "they"??




All I'm saying is that v.2 informs us that Paul is cautioning the Thessalonians not to be persuaded by anyone purporting "that the day of the Lord IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT" (NOT "is AT HAND / NEAR / SOON to arrive," NO)




(meaning, [the false conveyors were purporting] that the earthly-located *time-period* known as 'the day of the Lord' IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT... that it ARRIVED at some point in the PAST, and its results are CONTINUING ON into the PRESENT [of course, since it is *defined* as an earthly-located *time-period* of MUCH duration... They were not making the point that the 956th year OF it "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT" for example (and only just *NOW* cue the "freak-out" reaction on the part of the Thessalonians... No.)]

 

[Blade]

"Those of us with a head on our shoulders realize that the "gap" of Dan9 is going to happen in the latter chapters. I mean you just cant miss it. I mean its the focal point in the history of the universe after all...."

I don't! It's such fun to let others open their mouths and leave no shadow of a doubt.

Hmm some would all this "Ad Hominem". Stick to what it is you disagree with and then show why you disagree.

 

[randyk]

I'm not saying "they thought" such a thing, at least not that I am aware of what I said. = D

I quoted it, brother. You said: "rk your understanding of his "be revealed" is that this occurs 3.5y prior to Christ's return." The "be revealed" that you refer to is what the errant believers thought and claimed about the day of Christ's coming.

I am not here talking about the revelation of Antichrist, but about the claim that Christ had come. The errant ones thought that Christ had already come. It was Paul who said that Antichrist must be revealed 1st.

When you say ^ "that they thought," who are you meaning by the word "they"??

They are the "errant ones," who had been claiming that the day of Christ's coming had already taken place.

All I'm saying is that v.2 informs us that Paul is cautioning the Thessalonians not to be persuaded by anyone purporting "that the day of the Lord IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT" (NOT "is AT HAND / NEAR / SOON to arrive," NO)

Why on God's green earth do you add all of these words? You undoubtedly intend to clarify, but instead, you complicate unnecessarily, and perhaps render incomprehensible, or obscure the meaning. "...asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. "

Now was that so difficult? These "errant ones" were misleading other Christians into thinking the day of the Lord had already come. We do not need to hear: "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT" (NOT "is AT HAND / NEAR / SOON to arrive." The word "come" simply means "to arrive." These errant ones were saying that the day had indeed already taken place. Paul was saying, "No, it hasn't yet taken place!"

(meaning, [the false conveyors were purporting] that the earthly-located *time-period* known as 'the day of the Lord' IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT... that it ARRIVED at some point in the PAST, and its results are CONTINUING ON into the PRESENT [of course, since it is *defined* as an earthly-located *time-period* of MUCH duration...

And this is where I say you're going off into left field. The subject, ie the Day of the Lord, is *not* "continuing on into the present," nor do I even know what you mean by that? These "errant ones," the "false conveyers," claimed that the Day had already taken place, and not that it was continuing on into the present! They were saying that that Day had *already taken place!*

The present indicative that you refer to has to do with the *belief* that this had already happened, not that it was continuing on into the present. They believed that Christ had already come for the Church, indeed had come to these "errant ones." This literal 24' hour day was believed to have already taken place, and this belief continued.

They were not making the point that the 956th year OF it "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT" for example (and only just *NOW* cue the "freak-out" reaction on the part of the Thessalonians... No.)]

I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not saying that the Day of the Lord is any more than a single literal day! You are the one who is saying it has to be a lengthy period of time--not me. So who are you arguing with--yourself?