What does "the coming of the Lord" in the NT refer to?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

kenallen

Active member
Apr 8, 2022
437
92
28
#81
GaryA Influence of John Darby:
The Influence of John Darby
Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world which has perpetuated down to the present day. All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. These early men helped pave the way particularly for the renewal of modern lexical studies in the biblical languages.
This renewal of language studies was not the only thing they produced. The doctrine of “dispensationalism” was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world. And then, there was this new doctrine termed the “Rapture.” While many Christians long thought the Rapture doctrine originated with John Darby, it is now known that this was not true. Darby did popularize it. Scofield and others took it over. But Darby provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable. Many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity today are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. His source was Margaret Macdonald.
The studies of Mr. MacPherson show that her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. By late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ’s coming was mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in “tongues” and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. Modern “Pentecostalism” had its birth.
These extraordinary and strange events so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness what was going on. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed, it is nonetheless significant that Darby, after returning from Scotland, began to teach that Christ’s Advent would occur in two phases. MacPherson shows good evidence that Darby even visited Miss Macdonald in her home. There can hardly be any doubt that the visions and spiritual experiences of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine. But belief in such paranormal experiences is dangerous, especially when they are contrary to scriptural teachings.
I do hope that you will read all this and ask God to show you the truth. Please take the time to read and study Ezekiel 13. May God grant you the eyes to see with, the ears to hear with and the open heart to receive His word.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#82
^ @kenallen ,

Check out this old post I made, which shows that the "Margaret Macdonald" claims (about her) are inaccurate, and have been thoroughly debunked. And that what she had described from her so-called "visions" was actually a POST-trib rapture (not a "PRE-trib rapture"):

Post #33 of a different thread (and other posts elsewhere) - https://christianchat.com/threads/the-false-early-rapture-timing-doctrine.191788/post-4229262



Another member/poster, @ewq1938 , has likewise posted similar "debunking" information on this supposed Margaret Macdonald influence (even though ewq1938 and I hold differing viewpoints on rapture-timing).

Check it out. = )


____________


[for the readers: check out Post #43 of this thread to see what Ezek13:20 is actually covering]
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
#83
FreeGrace2 said:
The problem is your misunderstanding of "the rest of the dead" in Rev 20:5.
The resurrection of the tribulation of the martyrs? What are you talking about.
My issue with the other poster is about Rev 20:5 and the phrase "the rest of the dead". The last phrase in v.5 "this is the first resurrection" refers to the singular resurrection of ALL believers at the Second Advent, which includes the tribulation martyrs. The "rest of the dead" refers to the singular resurrection of ALL unsaved, which will be for the GWT judgment at the end of Rev 20, v.11-15.

The bible makes it very clear that upon death the body returns to the earth from which it came and the spirit returns to God who gave it. There were only 2 people in the bible that did not die and were taken to heaven and even they did not enter heaven in a flesh body that was Enoch and Elijah two others died and no one knows where there bodies are Moses and Jesus.
Huh? Jesus was resurrected IN His phyical body, which was glorified as well. So we DO know where His body is. In heaven.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,318
113
mywebsite.us
#84
Here is what God has to say about your fly away doctrine "rapture"
I will have you know that there is absolutely no "fly away" in "my rapture doctrine"...

The word 'rapture' means "the 'catching up' of the saints" - no more and no less - but, exactly that.

If you don't believe me, ask anyone here if there are not 10 or 100 posts I have made over the past 10 years on this site that make it perfectly clear.

And, the point is:

~ I am in the post-trib crowd - you are preaching to the choir here.

~ You are supporting the idea that the word 'rapture' should include all of the details that the pre-trib crowd would like to attach to the base (and proper) definition of the word.

Pay more attention to what others post. It may help you waste less of your own time "calling someone out" on something they do not even believe or support.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
#85
And, the point is:

~ I am in the post-trib crowd - you are preaching to the choir here.

~ You are supporting the idea that the word 'rapture' should include all of the details that the pre-trib crowd would like to attach to the base (and proper) definition of the word.
The problem is that the vast majority of evangelicals DO think of a glorified trip to heaven when they hear "rapture".

In fact, their focus is so narrow as to speak of "rapture verses" rather than "resurrection verses". It's always good to be clear.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,776
113
#86
The problem is that the vast majority of evangelicals DO think of a glorified trip to heaven when they hear "rapture". In fact, their focus is so narrow as to speak of "rapture verses" rather than "resurrection verses". It's always good to be clear.
The problem is that Christians should have been speaking about the Resurrection/Rapture all along, not just the Resurrection or just the Rapture. The Resurrection is for the saints who have already passed on and are now in Heaven. The Rapture will be for the saints who are alive when the Resurrection takes place, and they will accompany the resurrected saints back to Heaven. And both events will be on the same day and at the same time. BEFORE any severe judgments fall on the earth.

And whether you like it or not the Rapture is exactly that -- a glorified trip to Heaven. So by scoffing at it you are actually scoffing at God and Christ. Go and read about Enoch and Elijah, then repent of your foolish naysaying.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
#87
The problem is that Christians should have been speaking about the Resurrection/Rapture all along, not just the Resurrection or just the Rapture. The Resurrection is for the saints who have already passed on and are now in Heaven. The Rapture will be for the saints who are alive when the Resurrection takes place, and they will accompany the resurrected saints back to Heaven. And both events will be on the same day and at the same time. BEFORE any severe judgments fall on the earth.

And whether you like it or not the Rapture is exactly that -- a glorified trip to Heaven. So by scoffing at it you are actually scoffing at God and Christ. Go and read about Enoch and Elijah, then repent of your foolish naysaying.
Nope. The Bible is very clear about there being a single resurrection for the saved, and a single resurrection for the unsaved.

The single resurrection for the saved will occur "when He comes", which is a reference to the Second Advent, obviously.

1 Cor 15:23 - But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

There are only 2 prophecies in the OT about the "coming of Messiah". They are the 2 Advents of Christ. The first advent was His birth and life on earth as the "suffering servant". The Second Advent is when He comes back as King of kings and Lord of lords, with ALL believers receiving their glorified bodies.

The phrase "those who belong to Him" is a reference to ALL believers, from Adam on.

As much as pretribbers argue that the resurrection is in stages, there are NO verses that show this. It is merely a construct to support a theory.

The living believers on earth "when He comes" will NEVER see heaven.

And again, NO verse shows Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. We've already been over this, numerous times.

Unless you can prove this idea of glorified believers going to heaven, you need a clear verse showing it.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#88
There are only 2 prophecies in the OT about the "coming of Messiah". They are the 2 Advents of Christ. The first advent was His birth and life on earth as the "suffering servant". The Second Advent is when He comes back as King of kings and Lord of lords, with ALL believers receiving their glorified bodies.
Here's where I think you are mistaken.

The time between when He first ascended ON FIRSTFRUIT (His resurrection day--"I ascend" - Jn20:17) and His second (and, at that time, VISIBLE) ascension in Acts 1, was neither His "Suffering Servant" prophecies related, nor His coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (as in Rev19:16; Rev17:14; 1Tim6:15) which is at His "RETURN" to the earth point in time.

He spent "40 days" between those two points, being seen only by His carefully chosen witnesses (believers) and no one else (Acts 10:40-41).

This "in-between" time-slot fits into neither of the "two" categories which you are stating are the only two that exist [/existed].
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#89
^ @kenallen ,

Check out this old post I made, which shows that the "Margaret Macdonald" claims (about her) are inaccurate, and have been thoroughly debunked. And that what she had described from her so-called "visions" was actually a POST-trib rapture (not a "PRE-trib rapture"):

Post #33 of a different thread (and other posts elsewhere) - https://christianchat.com/threads/the-false-early-rapture-timing-doctrine.191788/post-4229262



Another member/poster, @ewq1938 , has likewise posted similar "debunking" information on this supposed Margaret Macdonald influence (even though ewq1938 and I hold differing viewpoints on rapture-timing).

Check it out. = )


____________


[for the readers: check out Post #43 of this thread to see what Ezek13:20 is actually covering]
post-tribulation rapture theologians directly quote the Bible in order to cite references for the rapture. Nothing clearly in the Bible about a pre-trip rapture. I just don't see it even though I have searched earnestly for it. Why is this the case in your perspective?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,776
113
#90
I just don't see it even though I have searched earnestly for it. Why is this the case in your perspective?
Can you find a single verse connecting the Tribulation to the Rapture? If not, that should settle the issue.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#91
post-tribulation rapture theologians directly quote the Bible in order to cite references for the rapture. Nothing clearly in the Bible about a pre-trip rapture. I just don't see it even though I have searched earnestly for it. Why is this the case in your perspective?
If I grasp your question correctly ("why is this...?"), I think you mean, why can't people see this in Scripture, if it's true (as we say it is).

For one (just one small part), I believe it is because 1) people are MIS-defining what it is that verse 2 is speaking about (2Th2:2) when it says that the false conveyors were claiming / purporting "that the day of the Lord is present [perfect indicative]" (a perfectly BELIEVABLE and RATIONAL / REASONABLE thing for them to believe / be persuaded was TRUE, due to their present and ONGOING very negative experiences per 2Th1:4, just verses earlier in this text)... which people commonly MIS-define ("the DOTL") as speaking of "Christ's Second Coming to the earth point in time [that "singular 24-hr day" when His feet touch the ground]".

But that is not what is being falsely claimed by those false conveyors (of v.2); rather, they are falsely claiming "that the day of the Lord is present [perfect indicative]" and what THAT IS had already been explained (and the Thess's "know perfectly" about) in 1Th5:1-3 as ARRIVING at ['exactly as'] the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (the one that COMES UPON a woman with child)... OF the very "beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that Jesus had previously spoken of in His Olivet Discourse (which ISN'T speaking of the moment of His "RETURN" to the earth moment-in-time, but rather what precedes and LEADS UP TO (and points TOWARD) His return to the earth Rev19... and which "BoBPs" are EQUIVALENT to the SEALS [Rev6] at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN; Rev1:1 (1:19c / 4:1)]" time-period... which IS the 7 years [future] that immediately precede and LEAD UP TO His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19.)


So, starting from that first mis-step in interpreting this passage, the reader commences a path further and further far-afield from that which Paul is actually conveying in this text.

And that's just ONE part of the "missing-the-point" (when reading this text in 2Th2) that people commonly take a mis-step in, when interpreting what it is that Paul is conveying here (and related to what he says elsewhere... which has been covered in past posts, so I won't get into all that here in this post, which is long enough already. :D )






Nothing clearly in the Bible about a pre-trip rapture.
I completely disagree.

But you are free to believe as you wish. = )
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#92
If I grasp your question correctly ("why is this...?"), I think you mean, why can't people see this in Scripture, if it's true (as we say it is).

For one (just one small part), I believe it is because 1) people are MIS-defining what it is that verse 2 is speaking about (2Th2:2) when it says that the false conveyors were claiming / purporting "that the day of the Lord is present [perfect indicative]" (a perfectly BELIEVABLE and RATIONAL / REASONABLE thing for them to believe / be persuaded was TRUE, due to their present and ONGOING very negative experiences per 2Th1:4, just verses earlier in this text)... which people commonly MIS-define ("the DOTL") as speaking of "Christ's Second Coming to the earth point in time [that "singular 24-hr day" when His feet touch the ground]".

But that is not what is being falsely claimed by those false conveyors (of v.2); rather, they are falsely claiming "that the day of the Lord is present [perfect indicative]" and what THAT IS had already been explained (and the Thess's "know perfectly" about) in 1Th5:1-3 as ARRIVING at ['exactly as'] the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (the one that COMES UPON a woman with child)... OF the very "beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that Jesus had previously spoken of in His Olivet Discourse (which ISN'T speaking of the moment of His "RETURN" to the earth moment-in-time, but rather what precedes and LEADS UP TO (and points TOWARD) His return to the earth Rev19... and which "BoBPs" are EQUIVALENT to the SEALS [Rev6] at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN; Rev1:1 (1:19c / 4:1)]" time-period... which IS the 7 years [future] that immediately precede and LEAD UP TO His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19.)


So, starting from that first mis-step in interpreting this passage, the reader commences a path further and further far-afield from that which Paul is actually conveying in this text.

And that's just ONE part of the "missing-the-point" (when reading this text in 2Th2) that people commonly take a mis-step in, when interpreting what it is that Paul is conveying here (and related to what he says elsewhere... which has been covered in past posts, so I won't get into all that here in this post, which is long enough already. :D )








I completely disagree.

But you are free to believe as you wish. = )
Okay. So has has the DOTL already happened? Your explanation seems to lead me to conclude that you believe in preterism. Forgive me is that is not what you meant to say, but I don't see any other conclusion to what you just said. I am not a preterits so my perspective is that the DOTL is a future event.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#93
Okay. So has has the DOTL already happened? Your explanation seems to lead me to conclude that you believe in preterism. Forgive me is that is not what you meant to say, but I don't see any other conclusion to what you just said. I am not a preterits so my perspective is that the DOTL is a future event.
"So has has the DOTL already happened?"

NO.

"the day of the Lord" ARRIVES at ["exactly as [hosper]"] the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (i.e. Seal #1)... followed by MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" (Jesus spoke of)... and Seal #1 is the AC / man of sin and his "whose COMING [ARRIVAL / advent / presence / parousia--2Th2:9a] (he's NOT here yet)... and the SEALS [/BoBPs] all fall within the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period (Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1)... that yet-future, specific, LIMITED time-period (i.e. 7-yrs / "One Week") that immediately precedes and LEADS UP TO (and POINTS TOWARD) His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 (FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age, commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth).

Paul, in 2Th2, is laying out the SEQUENCE of "what happens when in relation to what other thing"... but when ppl MIS-define "the DOTL" (2Th2:2) and that the false conveyors were purporting this is "is present / is already here [perfect indicative]," this contributes to their misapprehension of what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this text, especially in the verses that follow (which further leads also to their not grasping what he says relatedly elsewhere).

I hope that helps. = )






NO, the day of the Lord is indeed yet future and ARRIVES at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (the one that COMES UPON a woman) per 1Th5:1-3... and is only ever located "on the earth"... and INCLUDES and involves "JUDGMENTs" unfolding upon the earth, i.e. in the 7-yr trib [SEALS / TRUMPETS / VIALS] leading up to His RETURN to the earth Rev19 (as WELL as including the entire earthly MK age).

Make sense so far? = )



NO, I am not Preterist! = )
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#94
"So has has the DOTL already happened?"

NO.

"the day of the Lord" ARRIVES at ["exactly as [hosper]"] the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (i.e. Seal #1)... followed by MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" (Jesus spoke of)... and Seal #1 is the AC / man of sin and his "whose COMING [ARRIVAL / advent / presence / parousia--2Th2:9a] (he's NOT here yet)... and the SEALS [/BoBPs] all fall within the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period (Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1)... that yet-future, specific, LIMITED time-period (i.e. 7-yrs / "One Week") that immediately precedes and LEADS UP TO (and POINTS TOWARD) His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 (FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age, commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth).

Paul, in 2Th2, is laying out the SEQUENCE of "what happens when in relation to what other thing"... but when ppl MIS-define "the DOTL" (2Th2:2) and that the false conveyors were purporting this is "is present [perfect indicative]," this contributes to their misapprehension of what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this text, especially in the verses that follow (which further leads also to their not grasping what he says relatedly elsewhere).

I hope that helps. = )






NO, the day of the Lord is yet future and ARRIVES at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (that COMES UPON a woman) per 1Th5:1-3... and is only ever located "on the earth"... and INCLUDES and involves "JUDGMENTs" unfolding upon the earth, i.e. in the 7-yr trib [SEALS / TRUMPETS / VIALS] leading up to His RETURN to the earth Rev19 (as WELL as including the entire earthly MK age).

Make sense so far? = )
The day of the Lord corresponds to Isaiah 13, Matthew 24, and Revelation 6. Look at the signs; that means post-tribulation.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#95
The day of the Lord corresponds to Isaiah 13, Matthew 24, and Revelation 6. Look at the signs; that means post-tribulation.
In any given context (re: "the day of the Lord") it is referring to any one or more of its THREE aspects:

1) the 7-yr tribulation period unfolding upon the earth ("IN THE NIGHT" / "DARK / DARKNESS" aspect);

2) His Second Coming to the earth (the "SUN of righteousness ARISE" aspect);

3) His 1000-yr reign on / over the earth (the "reign... GLORIOUSLY" aspect)


ALL THREE of these are what "the day of the Lord" entails.




Again, it ARRIVES "exactly as [hosper]" the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" per 1Th5:1-3 (don't overlook this, as many do);

... and Jesus spoke of those very "beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" in His Olivet Discourse as things which PRECEDE and LEAD UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (NOT all occurring AT THE POINT IN TIME of His Second Coming to the earth, see).

They unfold OVER SOME TIME, and are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6, which SEALS *all* fit WITHIN the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period that Rev1:1 [/1:19c / 4:1] speaks of (which means they are all YET FUTURE and occur WITHIN the future, specific, LIMITED time-period which immediately precedes and leads up to His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19... that which [re: His "RETURN" to the earth] Lk12:36-37,38,39,40-44 also speaks to [parallel Matt24:42-51 in His Olivet Discourse], where Luke 12 states, "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" [i.e. as an ALREADY-WED Bridegroom]... THEN the meal [G347; see this word used also in Matt8:11 and parallel], aka the MK age = "the wedding FEAST / SUPPER" on the earth [or at least its inauguration], commencing at His "RETURN" to the earth)
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
#96
FreeGrace2 said:
There are only 2 prophecies in the OT about the "coming of Messiah". They are the 2 Advents of Christ. The first advent was His birth and life on earth as the "suffering servant". The Second Advent is when He comes back as King of kings and Lord of lords, with ALL believers receiving their glorified bodies.
Here's where I think you are mistaken.

The time between when He first ascended ON FIRSTFRUIT (His resurrection day--"I ascend" - Jn20:17) and His second (and, at that time, VISIBLE) ascension in Acts 1, was neither His "Suffering Servant" prophecies related, nor His coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (as in Rev19:16; Rev17:14; 1Tim6:15) which is at His "RETURN" to the earth point in time.
You are missing the point. The OT prophecies about the Messiah involved TWO advents. Do you agree or disagree? Regardless, there are only TWO advents prophesied in the OT. The first has already occurred. So every time the NT mentions "the coming of the Lord", it can ONLY MEAN the Second Advent, which is AFTER the trib.

All this talk about "first fruits" is actually fruitless. Acts 26:23 settles the matter about what "firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:23 means.

Acts 26:23 - that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

1 Cor 15:23 - But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

So, Christ is the "firstfruits" because He was the FIRST to receive a glorified body. That's all it means regarding Christ and the resurrection.

He spent "40 days" between those two points, being seen only by His carefully chosen witnesses (believers) and no one else (Acts 10:40-41).
Irrelevant as to the singular resurrection of all believers (those who belong to Him).

This "in-between" time-slot fits into neither of the "two" categories which you are stating are the only two that exist [/existed].
This "in between time" is irrelevant to the TWO advents prophesied in the OT.

My point is that every mention of "the coming of Christ" in the NT is a reference to the Second Advent.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,318
113
mywebsite.us
#97
The problem is that the vast majority of evangelicals DO think of a glorified trip to heaven when they hear "rapture".

In fact, their focus is so narrow as to speak of "rapture verses" rather than "resurrection verses". It's always good to be clear.
I know. And, yes - it is a problem. But, do you think that it should be supported? Or, do you think that it should be corrected?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
#98
Irrelevant as to the singular resurrection of all believers (those who belong to Him).
I disagree (based on the grammar I explained, between v.22b ["[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE]"] and v.23) that there's a "singular" instance of "resurrection" being spoken of in v.23 (NO!);

...rather, "but each in his own order / rank" speaks of BOTH parts of v.23 (both of these being "future" as under the "[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE tense]" wording that v.22 just left off with, leading into v.23's subject [regarding "rank / order"... both sections in v.23 fitting in the "FUTURE" category, due to this "but"-conjunction, connecting back to the "shall be [future tense]" thing]).









@presidente also, answering to the first part of your Post #49. (My apologies for not getting back to that post before now)
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,318
113
mywebsite.us
#99
I disagree (based on the grammar I explained, between v.22b ["[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE]"] and v.23) that there's a "singular" instance of "resurrection" being spoken of in v.23 (NO!);

...rather, "but each in his own order / rank" speaks of BOTH parts of v.23 (both of these being "future" as under the "[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE tense]" wording that v.22 just left off with, leading into v.23's subject [regarding "rank / order"... both sections in v.23 fitting in the "FUTURE" category, due to this "but"-conjunction, connecting back to the "shall be [future tense]" thing]).
No - you are trying to bend the trees into pretzels in order to hide the forest.

1 Corinthians 15:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

In verse 20, it is established that Christ's 'resurrection' and 'firstfruits' status are both in the past relative to the time of the writing of the letter.

You must look at the above verses in the greater context.

The [main] 'sense' of the phrase at the end of verse 22 is not a chronological/timeline one; rather, it is in regard to the 'process' or 'mechanism' of it. ('For as'/'even so')

Verses 21-22 together illustrate it.

However, verse 23 does have a chronological component - first, Christ (past); then, 'they' (future).
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,318
113
mywebsite.us
The Resurrection is for the saints who have already passed on and are now in Heaven. The Rapture will be for the saints who are alive when the Resurrection takes place, ...
The rapture will be those resurrected along with those 'alive' - caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.

The rapture is the "catching up" of the saints into the air.