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

[TheDivineWatermark]

I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth."

So that ^ is what I would call "the churchES" (not 100% of the person are actually saved / saints / believers / having trusted Christ for salvation), and also what the world might call "Christians" (a label originally placed by others ABOUT those whom they perceive as following Christ, right?); or even the word "church" when the text refers to a local assembly (like as found in Rev2-3); or the even the phrase "the church in the wilderness" (see the entire context of Acts 7:35-43)...

[not 100% ^ are actually "saved" / "saints" / "believers" / "having trusted Christ for salvation"--and we see this in verses like: 1Jn2:19 (Act15:24) "[which/they] WENT OUT FROM US...," see...]




But *I'm* referring specifically to the phrase "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" - Eph1:20-23 "WHEN [as to its existence]" (i.e. ALL those having come to faith "in this present age [singular]")

"The Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up ONLY of true believers / saints / those having trusted Christ for salvation ("in this present age [singular]"); but I'm making the point that this phrase is not the same as saying "[...saith] unto the churchES" (Rev references)

Let me know what you think?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Mat 13:33
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Somehow I missed these follow-up posts of yours. I apologize.



You may recall my past posts saying "the kingdom OF THE heavenS" is earthly-located (it involves also the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So that ^ is what I would call "the churchES" (not 100% of the person are actually saved / saints / believers / having trusted Christ for salvation)

^ EDIT to CORRECT typo:

"(not 100% of the persons are actually saved / saints / believers / having trusted Christ for salvation)"

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I know that some Church Fathers held to the septa-millennial view, believing that there was yet a long period of tribulation before the Kingdom of God comes. Antichrist, thus, was likely to be a long ways off.

Irenaeus may have been looking at a shorter time-line between the 1st century and the coming of Antichrist?

Here's what Irenaeus's view was on that point ^ :

[quoting]

"[TDW: after he refers to the first part of Rev13, i.e. the beast/antichrist...] After this he likewise describes his armour-bearer, whom he also terms a false prophet: He spoke as a dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast in his sight, and caused the earth, and those that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray. Revelation 13:11, etc. Let no one imagine that he performs these wonders by divine power, but by the working of magic. And we must not be surprised if, since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray. John says further: And he shall order an image of the beast to be made, and he shall give breath to the image, so that the image shall speak; and he shall cause those to be slain who will not adore it. He says also: And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six, Revelation 13:14, etc. that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.

"3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. Genesis 2:2 This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; 2 Peter 3:8 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year."

--Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V [5], Chapter 28 - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103528.htm


[end quoting; BLUE inserted bracket mine; other brackets original; bold emphasis mine]



____________



... so it appears to me that Irenaeus also held to a kind of millennial-sabbath-theory, as you point out about the others... (what you are calling a "septa-millennial" view)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Sit down therefore referring to eating a meal?
Gen 18:33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham

The word in v.33 is "H1696 - dabar"... or in the LXX "G2980 - laleo" which means "speaking / talking"... but that's not the word I was referring to.

In fact, I do not see anywhere in Genesis 18 where Abraham "sat down [around a table / at a meal]"... rather, he "stood [H5975]" vv.8,22, and "approached [H5066]" v.23.



I'm referring more to this (word):

1 Samuel 16:11 -
"And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down [H5437 - nā-sōḇ / sabab ('to revolve, surround, or border' or 'set, sit down')] till he come hither."

...which word in the LXX is "G2625 - kataklino" as is used in Luke 9:14 ("make sit down [G2625] them" - feeding of the 5000) and Luke 24:30 ("and as He sat at meat [G2625] with them" - the two Emmaus road walkers); G2625 - kataklino - "Definition: to make to lie down; Usage: I cause to recline at table; mid. and pass: I recline at table"

...but in Mark 6:39 (also feeding of the 5000) is used the word (under present discussion) "G347 - anaklinó / anaklinai - ...make to recline; pass: I lie back, recline" (i.e. related word to the other, above)



[quoting from BibleHub, under G347]

"b. to make or bid to recline: Mark 6:39 (ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς, namely, the disciples, ἀνακλῖναι (ἀνακλιθῆναι L WH text) πάντας i. e. the people); Luke 9:15 (T Tr WH κατέκλιναν); . Passive, to lie back, recline, lie down: Matthew 14:19; of those reclining at table and at feasts, Luke 7:30 [wrong reference?? typo??] (R G); ; Matthew 8:11 — in the last two passages used figuratively of participation in future blessedness in the Messiah's kingdom."

[end quoting from BibleHub; bold mine]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ I personally think that other reference at "BibleHub" was supposed to say "Luke 13:29" (the parallel to Matt8:11), rather than Luke 7:30 (this word is not found in that verse, nor is that verse related--not the first time I've noticed "typos" at that site, so it would not be out of the question in this case)

 

[OldSage]

'sa'an es' is translated rest under the tree.

Personally I would have thought sit on a bench/table and chairs is more likely
if you want to wash someone's feet and then serve them a meal..

If it was so hot, Abraham would have invited them into the tent anyhow

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

The word in v.33 is "H1696 - dabar"... or in the LXX "G2980 - laleo" which means "speaking / talking"... but that's not the word I was referring to.

In fact, I do not see anywhere in Genesis 18 where Abraham "sat down [around a table / at a meal]"... rather, he "stood [H5975]" vv.8,22, and "approached [H5066]" v.23.



I'm referring more to this (word):

1 Samuel 16:11 -
"And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down [H5437 - nā-sōḇ / sabab ('to revolve, surround, or border' or 'set, sit down')] till he come hither."

...which word in the LXX is "G2625 - kataklino" as is used in Luke 9:14 ("make sit down [G2625] them" - feeding of the 5000) and Luke 24:30 ("and as He sat at meat [G2625] with them" - the two Emmaus road walkers); G2625 - kataklino - "Definition: to make to lie down; Usage: I cause to recline at table; mid. and pass: I recline at table"

...but in Mark 6:39 (also feeding of the 5000) is used the word (under present discussion) "G347 - anaklinó / anaklinai - ...make to recline; pass: I lie back, recline" (i.e. related word to the other, above)



[quoting from BibleHub, under G347]

"b. to make or bid to recline: Mark 6:39 (ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς, namely, the disciples, ἀνακλῖναι (ἀνακλιθῆναι L WH text) πάντας i. e. the people); Luke 9:15 (T Tr WH κατέκλιναν); . Passive, to lie back, recline, lie down: Matthew 14:19; of those reclining at table and at feasts, Luke 7:30 [wrong reference?? typo??] (R G); ; Matthew 8:11 — in the last two passages used figuratively of participation in future blessedness in the Messiah's kingdom."

[end quoting from BibleHub; bold mine]

 

[OldSage]

16 And the men rose up from thence

Anyway they were either supine or sitting.....

I cannot imagine in a million years that it was customary to tell
important visitors, let alone God, to stretch out on the grass for a picnic.....

 

[OldSage]

Personally I see Abraham as a servant at their table...but it is a shame it is not more explicitly stated

See John 15:15

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

 

[OldSage]

But you are right ......Abraham was standing serving whilst they were sitting eating

 

[OldSage]

Irenaeus, as I said, sort of mixed up prophecies generally interpreted to be historical with prophecies generally interpreted to be future. The historical view of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse he interpreted with the endtimes in mind, not necessarily denying the historicist approach either.

The thing I'm wondering is when some of the historicist and the futurist materials sort of get rolled up together into a single set of ideas, such as Irenaeus did with Dan 9/Matt 24 and the Antichrist, how did they fit time-wise? I know that some Church Fathers held to the septa-millennial view, believing that there was yet a long period of tribulation before the Kingdom of God comes. Antichrist, thus, was likely to be a long ways off.

Irenaeus may have been looking at a shorter time-line between the 1st century and the coming of Antichrist? Maybe that's why he blended in the prophecy of Antichrist with the historical prophecy of the Fall of Jerusalem? I don't know! I do believe that most of the Church Fathers saw the Roman Empire as preliminary to and directly leading into the Kingdom of Antichrist, when that Empire comes to form a 10 nation confederation.

I simply think Irenaeus looked beyond the 70 AD event, being more interested in what lies in the future. He therefore took traditionally historicist passages, such as the 70th Week and Olivet Discourse, and transferred their meaning over into futurist terms, which doesn't really fit. But these were hardly critical matters back in his time.

Well I was inclined to really take Iranaeus very seriously, as he was taught by Polycarp,
but I have passed him through Bing, and Bing has found him wanting....

Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week

It makes me wonder if there is not a certain amount of mythology about the Church fathers.

 

[OldSage]

I don't think the Thessalonian letters were prophecies. I think they were teaching. In 2 Thes Paul drew upon Dan 7, where the Man of Sin is presented in the Bible. I don't know of any other place, in OT Scriptures, where the Man of Sin is talked about. I don't think Antiochus 4 is the "Man of Sin," who is referred to in Dan 8 and Dan 11. So Paul is drawing exclusively from Dan 7 when speaking of the Man of Sin, in my opinion.

Going through point by point RK, I think here I really disagree with you most.
Luke spoke of having perfect understanding, and whether that came direct from the Lord, or from his time at Paul's side,
it makes no difference imo. Paul had perfect understanding also I think.

I think if he was teaching about Daniel 7, about prophecy, it was to expound the prophecy -
and therefore i see him prophesying here. If he was not expounding the little horn, then I
still see him prophesying.

I don't see prophecy as in any way accidental

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Thus the fact that Paul first prophesied privately to the Thessalonikans, and then publicly through a
letter that has become scripture, seems somehow significant.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The millenial reign does follow - that is correct. However, there is a 3.5 year period between end-of-trib and the Second Coming of Christ - at which point in time the millennial reign begins...

How did you come to this 3.5 yr period between end of Trib and Millennial reign? Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

randyk said:
I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth."

So that ^ is what I would call "the churchES" (not 100% of the person are actually saved / saints / believers / having trusted Christ for salvation), and also what the world might call "Christians" (a label originally placed by others ABOUT those whom they perceive as following Christ, right?); or even the word "church" when the text refers to a local assembly (like as found in Rev2-3); or the even the phrase "the church in the wilderness" (see the entire context of Acts 7:35-43)...

To both of you; at the time John wrote Revelation, the only people who weren't saved but were associating with any NT church were described as "false brethren".

2 Cor 11:26 - In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

Gal 2:4 - Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—

So when the authors addressed churches, they were addressing believers, which is obvious from the context of the letters.

There are only 2 categories of human beings: saved and unsaved.

So the mention of churches in Revelation in ch 1-3 and 22:16 refers to saved people.

[not 100% ^ are actually "saved" / "saints" / "believers" / "having trusted Christ for salvation"--and we see this in verses like: 1Jn2:19 (Act15:24) "[which/they] WENT OUT FROM US...," see...]

John was obviously referring to those who were saved but involved in false doctrines, just like Acts 15 shows:

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

OK, these "certain people" preached that circumcision was required to be saved.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

So we see here that there WERE believers (saved people) who belonged to the party of the Pharisees who were preaching that circumcision was required to be saved (v.1).

And this was the conclusion of the apostles and elders:

11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

So, even though these Pharisee party people were believers, they certainly weren't in line with the gospel.

 

[OldSage]

OldSage, I find you very smart and insightful. I want you to know I have zero issues with your character presently. On the contrary, I've found your posts to be honest and interesting, whether I agree with you or not.

I don't think the Thessalonian letters were prophecies. I think they were teaching. In 2 Thes Paul drew upon Dan 7, where the Man of Sin is presented in the Bible. I don't know of any other place, in OT Scriptures, where the Man of Sin is talked about. I don't think Antiochus 4 is the "Man of Sin," who is referred to in Dan 8 and Dan 11. So Paul is drawing exclusively from Dan 7 when speaking of the Man of Sin, in my opinion.

Clearly, Paul was speaking to his own generation. But in doing so, he is focusing on the future goal of Christ's return. In the meantime we have all of these problems, tribulations, antichrists, false prophets, etc. Until Christ comes back, and the final Antichrist is defeated, we have to be encouraged to "hold the fort." Paul calls it "standing." We have to learn to "stand."

I'm sure the predicted fall of Jerusalem was certainly in Paul's thinking as well. I just think he's more focused on persecutions by the Jews and by pagans. He wanted Christians to be aware of deceptions, and about the tendency to give up. This letter was not a prediction but an encouragement, in my view. It isn't a prophecy, but a warning to remain alert until the last Antichrist was done.



Yea, I don't know your positions, and I have no sense of superiority on them either. I do have boatloads of experience though, and am here to give my two cents. I've come to believe that the idea of God's "coming" or Christ's "coming" is described in the OT as any act of judgment or salvation on a grand scale. This would apply to the Assyrian judgment as it would to the Roman judgment. It would apply to the restoration of Israel in the time of Zerubbabel as it would to the Millennial Age.

I get this from having read George E. Ladd's books--I find Ladd fascinating. I'm not Preterist, but this view of "God's coming" helps me to see how Jesus compared His coming in 70 AD with His coming at the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Makes so much more sense that way. I'm not at all a Preterist or Partial Preterist, but I do agree with the Church Fathers that the OD is to be interpreted in an historicist way, focusing largely on 70 AD.

But the Olivet Discourse is also Futurist, and I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist. I don't believe the OD spoke of Antichrist--I think the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman Army. But the "great distress" that followed, according to Jesus, was a continuing tribulation of the Jewish People.

Jesus was still addressing mainly Israel at that time, because they were still under the Law at that time. And thus, only Israel was at that time in focus.

But we know that now, in the NT, what Jesus said to Israel can now apply to all. Even though 70 AD is over with, and a new covenant begun, there have come to be many Christian nations with their own "Jerusalem" and their own "temple." Christian nations have crashed and burned like Israel did in 70 AD. The Catholic Church and Mainline Churches have fallen on hard times, because they've seen compromise, and new generations of "professional" Christians. And the result has been at times a disaster.

The main thing, I think, is to encourage each other to continue to stand in the face of this occasional very negative experience. We have to expect that until the end there will be false hopes delivered to discourage us, false claims of the Kingdom of God, false prophecies--arrogant people who want to be our gurus, guiding us to the Promised Land. We need to follow Christ alone.

Thanks for the conversation!

I am thinking now, "Why did Paul give the prophecy (or teaching) to the Thessalonikans twice?
What was God trying to tell us?
Is he trying to make us aware of that very thing, Thessalonika?

Thessalonika means "Victory through falsity".....according to Strongs.
Could that mean "Victory through deception".
Is that what we are supposed to be taking notice of here?

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[OldSage]

Ya , that is it.
Paul cannot spell it out as that would destroy the deception.
Now I see it.
Thank you RK for this chat

 

[Absolutely]

That isn't a problem to me, brother! In the Gospels, Jesus and his disciples are *still under the Law!* That means that at that time only Israel are God's People still. The Church hasn't even been born yet. Of course the international Church isn't in Matt 24, Mark 13 or Dan 9 and 12! These things are focused largely only on Israel.

The Church is *not* absent in the book of Revelation, although Pretribbers claim so. The book is specifically written to the Church. It's all about the Church. The Church is persecuted by the Antichrist. The language sometimes is OT, and uses those kinds of terms. So people get a false conception that somehow the Dispensations of changed, and that in the book of Revelation the Church is gone and now things have switched back to OT times and only Israel. That's certainly against what is said, namely that *Christians* are being persecuted by Antichrist, and not just *Israel!*



Boy, you really sound like you're open to change?

1 thes 4 says the dead rise FIRST correct?

.....then you have them rising AFTER the gathering of rev 14.

You have placed the dead rising AFTER the living gathered in rev 14

Postrib rapture is impossible sir.

 

[Absolutely]

I am thinking now, "Why did Paul give the prophecy (or teaching) to the Thessalonikans twice?
What was God trying to tell us?
Is he trying to make us aware of that very thing, Thessalonika?

Thessalonika means "Victory through falsity".....according to Strongs.
Could that mean "Victory through deception".
Is that what we are supposed to be taking notice of here?

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

he was telling you that the gathering in rev 14 DURING THE TRIB.....is BEFORE the dead in Christ are raised and raptured.

Psssst....that is why he said , under the unction of the Holy Spirit, that the DEAD RISE FIRST AND ARE RAPTURED FIRST.....AS IN BEFORE THE LIVING.

You saying the Holy Spirit is mistaken?

 

[Absolutely]

I agree with the brother that Paul is *not* talking about Jerusalem. I can see how you get there, but it doesn't work for me either. I'm not sure why you even want to see it that way? It has to do with the 2nd Coming. Are you a partial preterist? I am not, but I do have a basis for saying that there are non-eschatological "comings" of God and of Christ, eg in 70 AD.

The second coming on white horses is not the rapture

Can not be.

 

[randyk]

I am thinking now, "Why did Paul give the prophecy (or teaching) to the Thessalonikans twice?
What was God trying to tell us?
Is he trying to make us aware of that very thing, Thessalonika?

Thessalonika means "Victory through falsity".....according to Strongs.
Could that mean "Victory through deception".
Is that what we are supposed to be taking notice of here?

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Isn't it odd that in the Bible we see names and places seemingly so pre-planned that their meaning indicates some spiritual truth? But I only go there if the black and white message is first crystal clear. And yes, I think the message to the Thessalonians is a message of triumph through adversity.

Not only were the Thessalonians persecuted, but they were lied to by those susceptible to error. Paul had taught them from what I believe was prophecy about the coming of the Son of Man from the clouds in Dan 7. But some Christian group had got it into their heads that they were elites with special prophetic abilities, and they thereby proceeded to claim all kinds of things about themselves, to make their spiritual revelations appear relevant in themselves. They claimed to be, in some sense, Christ's Coming.

Now this may seem to be weird and unlikely, unless you look at how these kinds of claims have taken place historically. There are boat loads of groups of Christians throughout history, and even today, who are puffed up on their own spiritual claims and revelations, who think that somehow the Kingdom of God is advancing through their exclusive group.

It is the "exclusive" part that makes these Christians a "cult." They are, in effect, claiming to have some kind of eschatological power over Satan, when the truth is, the Kingdom isn't going to come until it actually comes, and Jesus defeats Satan, as well as the Antichrist.

To say this is why the 2nd letter was written to the Thessalonians, because they were being side-tracked, and pulled towards following a cult group of Christians who believed they were bringing in the Kingdom of God. To some degree, the "Kingdom Now" people in the Church are doing this.

I don't want to get too critical because some of this is still developing, evolving, and hopefully self-correcting. The important thing is to hear Paul, and to be fore-warned about "false Christs" and "false prophets." This happens even in the Church in some ways. Let me know what you think?