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

[Ahwatukee]

YOU HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION FOR "THE DAY OF THE LORD".
J. Vernon McGee, will explain it to you.

QUOTE:
"Let no man deceive you by any means." If we are not to be deceived, then let's listen to Paul.


"For that day shall not come." Which day? The Day of the Lord --not the Rapture. The Day of the Lord shall not come except there be the fulfilling of two conditions: (1) "There come a falling away first" and (2) "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." Both of these things must take place before the Day of the Lord can begin, and neither one of them has taken place as yet.


There must be "a falling away first." Many have interpreted this to mean the apostasy, and I agree that it does refer to that. But I think it means more than that, as a careful examination of the word will reveal. The Greek word that is here translated as "falling away" is apostasia. The root word actually means "departure or removal from."


Paul says that before the Day of the Lord begins there must first come a removing. There are two kinds of removing that are going to take place. First, the organized church will depart from the faith -- that is what we call apostasy. But there will be total apostasy when the Lord comes, and that cannot take place until the true church is removed. The Lord asked, "...when the Son of man cometh [to the earth], shall he find [the] faith... ?" (Luke 18:8). When He says "the faith," He means that body of truth which He left here. The answer to His question is no, He will not find the faith here when He returns. There will be total apostasy because of two things: (1) the organization of the church has departed from the faith -- it has apostatized and (2) there has been another departure, the departure of the true church from the earth. The departure of the true church leads into the total apostatizing of the organized church. The Day of the Lord cannot begin -- nor the Great Tribulation period -- until the departure of the true church has taken place.


Paul is not going into detail about the rapture of the church because he has already written about that in his first epistle: "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: 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" (1Thess. 4:16-17). That is the departure, the removal, of the church.


The organized church which is left down here will totally depart from the faith. We see it pictured as the great harlot in Revelation 17. The Laodicean church, which is the seventh and last church described in the Book of Revelation, is in sad condition. I think that is the period we are in right now. When the true believers are gone, it will get even worse. It will finally end in total apostasy.


From the viewpoint of the earth the removal of believers is a departure. From the viewpoint of heaven, it is a rapture, a snatching or catching up. I think the world is going to say at that time, "Oh, boy, they are gone!" They think that fellow McGee and other Bible teachers are a nuisance, and they will be glad when they are gone. The world will rejoice. They do not realize that it will be a sad day for them. They think they will be entering into the blessing of the Millennium, not realizing they are actually entering into the Great Tribulation period, which will be a time of trouble such as the world has never before seen.

Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee.
:END QUOTE.

Right on, VCO! People don't recognize the difference between when Paul starts of with "concerning the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" vs. "The Day of the Lord." That day being the time of God's wrath. Look at what Amos has to say regarding the day of the Lord:

"Woe to you who long for the Day of the LORD! What will the Day of the LORD be for you? It will be darkness and not light.

It will be like a man who flees from a lion, only to encounter a bear, or who enters his house and rests his hand against the wall,
only to be bitten by a snake.

Will not the Day of the LORD be darkness and not light, even gloom with no brightness in it?"

Regarding this Paul said:

"But you, brothers, are not in the darkness so that this day should overtake you like a thief. For you are all sons of the light and sons of the day; we do not belong to the night or to the darkness."

The darkness and the night represent the the day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath. And Meaning that we do not belong to the night or to the darkness, and which means that those in Christ will not be on the earth during that time of darkness/wrath. It will not take us by surprise.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Rev 5.9; 7.9; 11.9; 13.7; 14.6 all seem to do with tribes beyond Israel.

Right. Well, ALMOST. I'd say, "all ppls... from all the nations" (whereas the word "tribes [G5443]" refers to Israel's tribes)...

That's why I was pointing out the *distinction* between verses that say, "every [or, 'all'] kindreds [G5443] AND tongues AND people AND nations" [or some combination thereof] [*distinctly-written*] to that of verses containing ONLY the G5443 word ("tribes / kindreds [G5443]"... such as Rev1:7 [distinct from how all those other Rev verses are worded referring to those FROM ALL NATIONS, *INCLUDING* the "tribes of Israel" (expressed in the "G5443" word, used alone, there)], and Matt24:30--same Greek word in these two verses... without the other listing that Rev5:9, 7:9,11:9, 13:9, 14:6 have, see...)

IOW, in the verses that don't "list out" all those other terms, and use only the term "tribes [G5443; /kindreds--same Grk word]," I believe those verses are speaking ONLY of the "tribes OF ISRAEL," just as in all other occurrences found in Scripture...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Matthew 24:30 -
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
5119 [e]
tote
τότε
then
Adv
2875 [e]
kopsontai
κόψονται
will mourn
V-FIM-3P
3956 [e]
pasai
πᾶσαι
all
Adj-NFP
3588 [e]
hai
αἱ
the
Art-NFP
5443 [e]
phylai
φυλαὶ
tribes
N-NFP
3588 [e]
tēs
τῆς
of the
Art-GFS
1093 [e]
gēs
γῆς ,
earth
N-GFS



Revelation 1:7 -
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
2875 [e]
kopsontai
κόψονται
will wail
V-FIM-3P
1909 [e]
ep’
ἐπ’
because of
Prep
846 [e]
auton
αὐτὸν
Him
PPro-AM3S
3956 [e]
pasai
πᾶσαι
all
Adj-NFP
3588 [e]
hai
αἱ
the
Art-NFP
5443 [e]
phylai
φυλαὶ
tribes
N-NFP
3588 [e]
tēs
τῆς
of the
Art-GFS
1093 [e]
gēs
γῆς .
earth
N-GFS

 

[randyk]

Right. Well, ALMOST. I'd say, "all ppls... from all the nations" (whereas the word "tribes [G5443]" refers to Israel's tribes)...

That's why I was pointing out the *distinction* between verses that say, "every [or, 'all'] kindreds [G5443] AND tongues AND people AND nations" [or some combination thereof] [*distinctly-written*] to that of verses containing ONLY the G5443 word ("tribes / kindreds [G5443]"... such as Rev1:7 [distinct from how all those other Rev verses are worded referring to those FROM ALL NATIONS, *INCLUDING* the "tribes of Israel" (expressed in the "G5443" word, used alone, there)], and Matt24:30--same Greek word in these two verses... without the other listing that Rev5:9, 7:9,11:9, 13:9, 14:6 have, see...)

IOW, in the verses that don't "list out" all those other terms, and use only the term "tribes [G5443; /kindreds--same Grk word]," I believe those verses are speaking ONLY of the "tribes OF ISRAEL," just as in all other occurrences found in Scripture...

It seems you're trying to argue that "tribes" refer to Israel in context when the context suggests that it is Israel that is being inferred? Of course! That's how words work.

If the context suggests that it's Israel being referred to, then "tribes," in context would be referring to the tribes of Israel. And if in context other ethnicities were in context, then "tribes" would then be referring to other ethnicities besides Israel.

In the chapter and verses I listed, the context appears to refer to other nations, along with Israel. So "tribes" would not suggest purely the tribes of Israel are being referred to. Rather, they seem to refer to tribes all across the world, including the Jewish "tribe," if you will.

There are no long any "tribes" of Israel, such as the 12 tribes in ancient times. As I said to someone earlier, the 12 tribes were designed to initiate the transition from the 12 sons of Jacob to a single nation. The goal was a nation, and the 12 tribes represented an intermediate state.

Even after the tribes were diminished, and the Kingdom of David emerged, the Kingdom was divided after Solomon's time, and there was the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah--not 12 tribes. The 12 tribes sort of merged into kingdoms, 10 tribes to the northern kingdom, and 2 tribes to the southern kingdom. Where the tribe of Levi fit in I don't know, because I think priests went in either direction, north or south. I would think most would go south though, since their duties were better spelled out by the Law as fitting in with worship at the temple in Jerusalem.

So "tribes," like any word, means what it means *in context.* There are certain words which when attached with "tribes" make it clear whether "tribes" referred to the ancient tribes of Israel or to the tribes all throughout the world.

But I'm not sure if it can be said what words and how many words have to be associated with "tribes" in order to determine whether they belong to Israel or to the world? I should think that the context could be provided in many, many forms to suggest what "tribes" refer to?

 

[randyk]

Right. Well, ALMOST. I'd say, "all ppls... from all the nations" (whereas the word "tribes [G5443]" refers to Israel's tribes)...

That's why I was pointing out the *distinction* between verses that say, "every [or, 'all'] kindreds [G5443] AND tongues AND people AND nations" [or some combination thereof] [*distinctly-written*] to that of verses containing ONLY the G5443 word ("tribes / kindreds [G5443]"... such as Rev1:7 [distinct from how all those other Rev verses are worded referring to those FROM ALL NATIONS, *INCLUDING* the "tribes of Israel" (expressed in the "G5443" word, used alone, there)], and Matt24:30--same Greek word in these two verses... without the other listing that Rev5:9, 7:9,11:9, 13:9, 14:6 have, see...)

IOW, in the verses that don't "list out" all those other terms, and use only the term "tribes [G5443; /kindreds--same Grk word]," I believe those verses are speaking ONLY of the "tribes OF ISRAEL," just as in all other occurrences found in Scripture...

If, however, you're saying that "tribes" must stand apart from "nations," referring to the tribes of Israel, only because the word "tribes" is distinct from "nations," then I'd have to disagree with you. The word "tribes" obtains its meaning from the context. If the context involves "nations," then "tribes" would naturally be associated with many nations, and not just with Israel.

"Tribes" and "nations" does not mean *Israel* and *many nations.* No, "tribes" and "nations" mean *the tribes of the world* and *the nations of the world.* "Tribes" would naturally correspond with "nations." And frankly, I don't know anyone who thinks that? I hope you don't!

"Tribes" is not a synonym for "Israel," unless the context suggests that. If the context suggest the nations of the world are being referred to, then "tribes" would refer to them.'

I do not personally think it's reasonable to read "all tribes and nations" as "all Israel and all nations."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Well, my "last-minute-edit" [bracketed-insertion] may have caused a bit of confusion (had zero time left to go back and write that bracketed insertion in a better way, conveying my intention more clearly).

Basically, I'm saying that the verses with the combined phrasing mean [basically] ppls from all those categories... whereas the verses using "G5443" ONLY (translated as either "TRIBES" [Matt24:30] or "KINDREDS" [Rev1:7] in kjv) are referring ONLY to "the tribes OF ISRAEL," just like every other occurrence of that word throughout Scripture.

There's no reason to think it would suddenly be different in these two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7),

... especially as the other verses we listed in Rev COMBINE terms IN ORDER TO SPEAK OF "[all ppls from] all/every tribe/kindred... nation... tongue... people" (in Rev5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6--similarly... however each of these verses is phrased, exactly...). See what I mean?



It is a fable that "tribes/kindred [G5443]" in these two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7) means something entirely different from every other occurrence of the word "tribe" throughout the rest of Scripture (which always refers to "the tribes OF ISRAEL").

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ ... which brings to mind a verse (commonly-quoted), and which I believe is rendered accurately this way (conveying what I believe is its intention, this way): " 20 knowing this first, that any prophecy of Scripture is not of its own interpretation."

(Kind of along the lines of the idea of 'Scripture interpreting Scripture'...)

 

[VCO]

There is no basis for this statement unless it comes from John N. Darby, or from someone influenced by him. Nothing in the Scriptures indicates that there can be no total apostasy until the church is removed. That was certainly untrue in the OT Scriptures when Israel fell into total apostasy. Men like Elijah and Jeremiah remained on earth and in Israel while at the same time Israel experienced *total apostasy.*

So listening to someone without any real theological basis for saying such things tells me he's just spouting the doctrine he was raised up in. It did not come out of objective Bible study on his own. It was a spin off from Pretrib Teachers that formed his Christian eschatology in the beginning of his Christian education.

Sorry, I read the serious theologians. I would rather read Walvoord than McGee.



Faith on earth is always difficult to come by. Even the apostles, in their early life, had "small faith," according to the Lord. Saying that the earth generally appears to be without faith does not indicate there is no faith. It is a state of the world ready for judgment. And the Church has to be here to be a witness against the world until final judgment comes.

Equally significant is the fact that all positions, Pretrib and Postrib, believe there will be a Church on earth to suffer the persecution of the Antichrist. So clearly, there will be faith on earth. God doesn't ever do anything without informing His servants, the prophets. The Church is here, along with the 2 Witnesses, to be a witness to the world. We are called upon to endure *to the end.* It doesn't do the Lord a lot of good to teach his apostles about the "Last Day" if Christians will not be around to see it!



Again, this is nonsense logic. How does anybody know that Paul completed his teaching about the Rapture in his 1st letter? He obviously didn't do that because in his 2nd letter his says more about it.



The Laodicean Church is a kind of church that existed in the Early Church and always exists in various places on earth. It does not represent the Endtimes state of the Church. If it did, it would still suggest that the Church is on earth!



This is a most silly argument. "Departure," or "apostasia" cannot mean 2 things at the same time. It either means departure from the faith, or Rapture to heaven--not both! Nobody communicates this way!



When God decides to judge the world, it won't take him 3.5 or 7 years time. It will take Him a split second. The 3.5 years is a period the Church is warned about because it will suffer persecution from Antichrist at that time, just as it happened in the ancient Roman Empire and many times since. To say the Church is gone is to make the Antichrist a non-threat. That subverts the entire teaching and message of Revelation. Sorry!

🕮

You are the one that IS IN ERROR, and YET YOU WANT TO ARGUE.

I have to give you my Second Warning for Arguing. It seems like you are addicted to a


Titus 3:9-11 (NIV)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


There will not be a Third Warning, if you continue with that divisive/argumenative attitutude, I will just put you on my permenant IGNORE LIST, in line with that last statement in VERSE 10 Above.

Have you not heard of "AGREEING TO DISAGEE."

 

[Absolutely]

No, this has never been debunked. There were minor exceptions to the rule, but generally, there was nothing we can remotely call "Pretrib Theology" in the Early Church. You are completely wrong. If you think there were any major theological systems with a Pretrib Theology, please name it--not just a rare breed with "original" ideas?

It is common knowledge pretrib doctrine existed in the early church

 

[Absolutely]

There are *no* Pretrib verses! I've answered, in detail, every single *claimed* Pretrib verse. Not one of them are explicit theological statements of doctrine. They are all assumed and read into a passage, largely by allegory. These are *not* "Pretrib verses!"

On the other hand. 2 Thes 2 is more explicitly Postrib in theological statement of doctrine than one could be. But *anything* can be rejected, ignored, or rationalized. So no matter how clear Paul was on the matter, you may just want to double and triple down on what you want to believe, on what you think is a popular view. It isn't a matter of Salvation, so I'm not too concerned.

So all those watch and wait...be ready verses as well as mat 24 and 25 are explained away how?

The gathering, watch, wait, be ready verses.
Are in no way the return on billions of horses in rev 19.

Please reconcile those verses

( the ones you have never addressed)

(The ones the church fathers never factored it...omitted)

 

[Absolutely]

The darby mess is a nothing burger.

Darby invoking is saying your argument is weak

 

[Runningman]

Brother, I don't care how many times you've pointed this out, it doesn't make sense to me. The passage reads:

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

3 μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της ανομιας ο υιος της απωλειας.

"First" qualifies our expectation of when the day of Christ will come. Our expectation must include a preliminary event, namely the rise of Antichrist, as well as the accompanying demise of the same. And the "day" of Christ's return is *not* separated from the return of Christ for his Church. On the contrary, that "day" is distinctly defined as the time in which Christ comes for his Church.

So we are not to expect Christ's coming for us, his Church, unless there is first the expectation that Antichrist will rise so that Christ will come only with the purpose of destroying him, and thus saving his Church.

Great break down. It doesn't get any more plainer than this.

Any rejection of this plain truth is willful or misguided.

 

[Runningman]

It is common knowledge pretrib doctrine existed in the early church

It's not common knowledge. The only known source of the pre-trib doctrine I'm aware of comes from Darby. Once he taught it, it caught on in the churches through literature and sermons.

Pre-trib rapture doesn't actually exist in the Bible either. You can't see that because you don't refuse to accept it. It's a good sign you're at least willing to talk about it though. I think this gives you ample opportunity to be exposed to Biblical truths about eschatology.

 

[randyk]

Great break down. It doesn't get any more plainer than this.

Any rejection of this plain truth is willful or misguided.

Thank you. That's true. Reading and memorizing this Scripture changed me from being Pretrib to Postrib, without any input from anybody else. Pure Scripture reading and memorizing. I couldn't ignore the implications. I couldn't ignore the explicit theology. My eschatology changed forever simply by reading the plainly stated truth, without having any personal agenda whatsoever.

It's amazing to me how strongly people hold to their preconceived, traditional ideas, and ignore truth staring them in the face. But I suppose we're all the same, have distrust, and get angry when our vested interests are at stake. We've committed ourselves and our pride to certain positions, and then have a difficult time losing face.

But I'd rather humble myself before the Lord and be right with him than defend my pathetic "honor." Thanks for your confirmation.

 

[cv5]

Jesus is not still preparing a "mansion" for his people. He did that when he died on the cross, redeeming us with his blood, forgiving us by his mercy. He is not literally in heaven, constructing a large building.

Must you allegorize everything? When Jesus says He's going to "prepare a place" for His own per Jn 14:2-3, a place fit for post-rapture glorified bodies , you can be sure that it's going to be a dwelling per se in some way shape or form. You do understand that Christians are resurrected to glorified bodies correct?

 

[randyk]

So all those watch and wait...be ready verses as well as mat 24 and 25 are explained away how?

I'm glad you asked. As I've said before, Imminency Teaching has been the best hope for Pretrib, because if the Bible teaches that we should expect Christ could return on *any day,* then there is no necessity that Antichrist should appear 1st!

But the truth is, 2 Thes 2, along with Dan 7, indicates that Antichrist must indeed appear 1st, before Messiah comes to destroy him and set up his eternal Kingdom. So what of these verses that say the Kingdom is near, or at hand?

To establish the imminency of the Kingdom is stating the intensity of an immediate need to repent of our sins. Regardless of whether Christ's coming is going to be within our lifetimes, or 2000 years into the future, the Kingdom is an immediate pressing need for us to repent today.

That is the real sense in which we are to understand that the Kingdom is coming soon. That is how all the early Christians understood the message of the imminent Kingdom. It had nothing to do with the ability of Christ to return at any moment or any day. Rather, it showed that there is a pressing, immediate need for us to repent of our sins today!

Look at all of the verses in this regard. In all of them there is a focus on an immediate need to repent, and not a calculation of what particular day Christ can return. Trying to calculate what days Christ can return, or even if he could return today, is never in the equation.

It goes without saying that he can't come on any particular day, since the Scriptures already assume that God has a pre-set day that He already knows and cannot change. Jesus cannot come on just any day, since the Father has already established a day in which he will come. And it is already clear from Dan 7 that he won't come until after Antichrist reigns for 3.5 years. Then he will come with a vengeance to save his people.

The gathering, watch, wait, be ready verses.
Are in no way the return on billions of horses in rev 19.

Please reconcile those verses

( the ones you have never addressed)

(The ones the church fathers never factored it...omitted)

I think I addressed this yesterday. And I've addressed it many, many times on other forums. I'm here to address it on this forum. The imminency of Christ's coming is designed to make us recognize that Christ has already offered mankind Salvation, so that there is the utmost need to respond to the Gospel. The urgency is there. That is what the "nearness" of the Kingdom means, that there is this urgency. The Gospel provides us the tools we need for repentance. We must make use of those tools now!

It is not just the coming of Christ we are to fear, but we are to fear God's judgment even today. We could have God make us give an accounting for our lives today. We could die today!

The danger inherent in Christ's coming is not when it will come but that it will come. When he comes he will render an eternal judgment for what we have chosen to do. And the imminent danger exists in the fact we could die today, and have to give an account for ourselves--not that Christ could come today.

The danger is that if we die today, we will have to give an account for what we have done when Christ does come and brings his Kingdom. He will decide if we belong in his Kingdom, or not.

So the next time you read about Jesus' soon coming, recognize that it is imminent death that we face, not an imminent "any day" coming of Christ. Christ's coming is imminent only in the sense that his coming will bring judgment for what we do today. And we could die today!

Everything we do today is being held up to the light of Christ's judgment. There is no other agenda that is putting off this critical need to prepare for the Kingdom. This urgent need to reform and to get right before God is what makes the imminent Kingdom so critical. I trust you understand?

 

[cv5]

Well, my "last-minute-edit" [bracketed-insertion] may have caused a bit of confusion (had zero time left to go back and write that bracketed insertion in a better way, conveying my intention more clearly).

Basically, I'm saying that the verses with the combined phrasing mean [basically] ppls from all those categories... whereas the verses using "G5443" ONLY (translated as either "TRIBES" [Matt24:30] or "KINDREDS" [Rev1:7] in kjv) are referring ONLY to "the tribes OF ISRAEL," just like every other occurrence of that word throughout Scripture.

There's no reason to think it would suddenly be different in these two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7),

... especially as the other verses we listed in Rev COMBINE terms IN ORDER TO SPEAK OF "[all ppls from] all/every tribe/kindred... nation... tongue... people" (in Rev5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6--similarly... however each of these verses is phrased, exactly...). See what I mean?



It is a fable that "tribes/kindred [G5443]" in these two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7) means something entirely different from every other occurrence of the word "tribe" throughout the rest of Scripture (which always refers to "the tribes OF ISRAEL").

In those two verses the mourning and wailng are due to true repentance per Luke 13:35 and Zech 12:10....

 

[randyk]

Must you allegorize everything? When Jesus says He's going to "prepare a place" for His own per Jn 14:2-3, a place fit for post-rapture glorified bodies , you can be sure that it's going to be a dwelling per se in some way shape or form. You do understand that Christians are resurrected to glorified bodies correct?

This has nothing to do with "allegorizing" anything. Jesus said he went to create a place for us so that we could live with him. A "place" is a building, whether it is made of wood and stone or of some other material.

I believe we will literally have a physical building, or buildings, where we can live forever in God's presence. I don't claim to know what they will be built of. But my point is not what they will be built of--they will be quite literal. Rather, my point is *when* the job was done.

Some say that Jesus is still working on building these buildings. But I believe the focus was on the cross, that it was *on the cross* that these buildings were "prepared for"--not built. The buildings will be built in the future. They were "prepared for" on the cross.

 

[cv5]

This has nothing to do with "allegorizing" anything. Jesus said he went to create a place for us so that we could live with him. A "place" is a building, whether it is made of wood and stone or of some other material.

I believe we will literally have a physical building, or buildings, where we can live forever in God's presence. I don't claim to know what they will be built of. But my point is not what they will be built of--they will be quite literal. Rather, my point is *when* the job was done.

Some say that Jesus is still working on building these buildings. But I believe the focus was on the cross, that it was *on the cross* that these buildings were "prepared for"--not built. The buildings will be built in the future. They were "prepared for" on the cross.

That makes no sense man. Fanciful irreverent ruminations of an overwrought imagination IMO.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Right. Well, ALMOST. I'd say, "all ppls... from all the nations" (whereas the word "tribes [G5443]" refers to Israel's tribes)...

That's why I was pointing out the *distinction* between verses that say, "every [or, 'all'] kindreds [G5443] AND tongues AND people AND nations" [or some combination thereof] [*distinctly-written*] to that of verses containing ONLY the G5443 word ("tribes / kindreds [G5443]"... such as Rev1:7 [distinct from how all those other Rev verses are worded referring to those FROM ALL NATIONS, *INCLUDING* the "tribes of Israel" (expressed in the "G5443" word, used alone, there)], and Matt24:30--same Greek word in these two verses... without the other listing that Rev5:9, 7:9,11:9, 13:9, 14:6 have, see...)

IOW, in the verses that don't "list out" all those other terms, and use only the term "tribes [G5443; /kindreds--same Grk word]," I believe those verses are speaking ONLY of the "tribes OF ISRAEL," just as in all other occurrences found in Scripture...

Good day, Watermark,

The bottom line here for these naysayers, is that the scripture in its plain meaning states the following:

* John heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel

* Each tribe is listed by name (minus Daniel) with 12,000 sealed from each.

Therefore, if you read the scripture at face value, the burden of proof is on those who say that the 144,000 and the 12,000 from each tribe are all symbolic and that because the one who does this has to force them to be as such. Where those who read and believe the plain meaning of the scripture which cites 144,000 who belong literal tribes of Israel, are simply believing the plain meaning of the context. Simply put, they can't say that the scripture doesn't literally say 144,000 and they can't say that it doesn't use the literal name of Israel.

If I was the Lord I would have them read it and when they gave the symbolic interpretation, I would say, "why didn't you believe what was written?" And their gonna say, "well, I read it in a book by such, such author and he convinced me that it didn't mean what it said. Isn't this the same thing that happened to Eve? God said, "In the day you eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall surely die. Then the devil came to Eve in the guise of the serpent and said, "no, you will not die. God knows that in the day that you eat of it you will become like God knowing good from evil." Who lied? Now God's saying, those who will be sealed are 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel and there saying "Nope!" It's not a literal 144,000 and not literal Israel. And they do the same with many other scriptural subjects.