What is the resurrection of bodies for?

I have heard and read pretribbers lay out this order over and over again, and interpret texts to try to make them fit with this. But where do pre-tribbers get the idea that the rapture occurs before the tribulation. Read Revelation. There is no rapture there at the beginning. I've read a pre-trib argument that John hearing 'come up hither' in a vision is supposed to be evidence for pre-trib. But that is such a weak argument for such an important doctrine.

Then when we actually read passages that deal with it, in Matthew 24, the coming of the Son of Man is after the tribulation. The gathering of the elect is right there in the coming of the Son of Man verse, not seven years before it. Paul writes of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering unto him in II Thes. 2:1, referring to the rapture as the gathering.

In I Thes. 4:15, we see that the rapture occurs at the 'parousia', the coming of Jesus. In II Thes. 4:8, the man of sin is destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming. If the man of sin is the beast, and I think most pre-tribbers think that, how can he be destroyed at the rapture and the events still unfold? The man of sin is destroyed at the Lord's coming, and the rapture occurs at the Lord's coming. How is any of this consistent with pre-trib.

Pre-tribbers say the church is not here during the tribulation. But I Thessalonians 1 shows that the church is here when Jesus comes back and executes vengence on them that know not God, etc.

Why do pre-tribbers believe the rapture occurs before the tribulation when there is no rapture there before the tribulation in Revelation, the elect are gathered after the tribulation in Matthew 24, and both the rapture and the destruction of the man of sin occur at the Lord's coming?

I guess I know why pre-tribbers think that way. They've heard sermons and read books so much and just believe in pre-trib. They want to believe in pre-trib because some of those events sure sound like something nice to miss. But I just can't see how it fits any of the details in the passage.

The 'not appointed unto wrath' passage is ofted used as an excuse. Wrath is anger, not a time period. Christians are not appointed unto God's wrath. I do not understand why pre-tribbers would think that those believers who will be alive during the tribulation are 'appointed unto wrath', but they aren't. Those saints will reign with Jesus. They are not objects of God's wrath.

^ presidente, see if the following post (I wrote earlier, on a different thread and different convo/context) helps any. I've posted in more detail in other posts before this (awhile back), but this gives a very brief explanation:

https://christianchat.com/threads/tribulation-means-pressure.180101/post-3738128 [Post #2 and the post after that one]


The Olivet Discourse is not covering the subject of our Rapture at all (per context), but His Second Coming to the earth, FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom (and the specific time period LEADING UP TO that [FOLLOWING our Rapture and starting with "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]," i.e. the SEALS of Rev6]). Thus, Matthew 24:29-31, which correlates with Isaiah 27:12-13, is a wholly distinct "gathering" [verb], and done by angels "HE SHALL SEND" to do so, and to a completely distinct LOCATION, and accomplished (as it says in the Isa text) "one BY one" (as opposed to OUR ['the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY'] gathering-together [noun] to the meeting [noun] of the LORD IN THE AIR, which is "AS ONE" / the "ONE BODY").

Distinct in every way.

I'd have to go searching for my more detailed posts that go into some of the other questions you've raised... that could take awhile though.

Hope this helps some...

^ [tried to EDIT to add] The "Rapture" pertains SOLELY to "the Church which is His body" [Eph1:20-23 "WHEN"], not to all other saints of all OTHER time periods (not to OT saints, not to Trib saints, not to MK saints)

You are one of my favorite posters here. Always on subject and contending for your view. I like that.

How do you deal with there being TWO comings? 1 thess 4:15-17 is a coming too, it says "us who remain to the.....coming of the Lord". yet its not the second coming.
Is there any scripture or precedent for two comings? Wouldnt that make it the third? Was the first coming in two parts?

This is pretty typical of pretrib--assertions that this verse does not mean this or that without really compelling evidence..

It if the trumpet inIsaiah there were the aseconf Coming trumpet it is possible that untransformed Jews will be gathered also. But Paul associates a gathering with the coming of Christ. He is writing to the Thessalonians church which were likely predominantly Gentile.

In IIThess 2:1 he says concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our garhering together unto Him.

If pretrib were true why wouldn't he say "Now concerning our gathering unto Christ and His coming 7 years later". The resurrection of the saints happens at the rapture. The rapture occurs at the Lird's coming.

To reconcile pretrib you have to believe there are two more parousia, two more second comings or that the coming of the Lird takes 7 years.

And there is no pretrib rapture event in the passages that describe these things. Some pretribbers gave taked to redefining 'apostasia' as the rapture. Or even more desperate, saying John being told 'Come up hither' in John 4 means the rapture.

Other than these strange attempts at interpretation wherecan anyone show a pretrib rapture actually occurring in scripture?

Why does the Bible say the rapture occurs at the coming/parousia of Jesus Christ if it is supposed to occur 7 years earlier?

Yes Presidente, I don't know how they draw conclusions from statements like "pray you are counted worthy' and "I will keep thee from the hour of temptation" means a rapture. Like God couldn't keep these promises amidst the tribulation.

They still can't account for all these references to saints being martyred;

Dan. 7:21 "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;"

Rev. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."

Rev. 13:7 "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

The word "parousia" is used also of the arrival/advent/presence of "the man of sin," also, as you may recall from my post.

"Parousia" is used both of Jesus' presence where "we" will go to the meeting of the Lord "IN THE AIR" (our Rapture) AND of His presence at the time of His Second Coming to the earth, depending on:
1) context, 2) location, and 3) in whose presence He will be...

(when it is "in the air" [at our Rapture] He will be in no one else's presence besides "the Church which is His body" who is "caught up" there [and so shall we ever be "WITH [G4862 - syn - denoting 'UNION' with] the Lord" [contrasted with the "WITH [G3326 - meta - accompanying]" word used of the "5 Virgins [PLURAL]" who go in with Him to "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" (earthly MK) whom He is not "MARRYING," upon His "return" to the earth as an already-wed "Bridegroom": the distinction between Rev19:7 [pertaining to "the Bride/Wife [SINGULAR]" and the MARRIAGE itself, in Heaven, and AORIST at the time of Rev19] and 19:9 [pertaining to "the guests [PLURAL]" and the marriage FEAST/SUPPER, which is NOT aorist but where He is headed down TO "WITH [G4862 - 'unioned' with]" His already-wed "Bride/Wife [SINGULAR]" [at that time, Rev19], and where then Luke 12:36-37,38,40 picks up the next scene in the chronology [where "Parousia" also applies, at the time of His Second Coming to the earth]: "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." THEN the meal; Matt25:1-13nasb esp. v.10, Matt22:9-14nasb, etc...)

As a pre-tribber, I've already stated that this verse ^ DOES NOT pertain to our Rapture (per CONTEXT). NOTHING in the Olivet Discourse ^ is covering the subject of our Rapture, but His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom. ALL "Son of man cometh/coming/shall come/etc" passages/contexts (of which THIS ^ is one) pertain to His Second Coming to the earth (FOR that purpose).

This verse is completely distinct from what is stated "to, for, and about 'the Church which is His body'" in 1Th5:9-10... "that whether we may watch or whether we may sleep [SAME GRK WORDS AS IN V.6, NOT meaning "DEATH' here!], we should live together WITH [G4862 - denoting 'UNION'] Him"

The CONTEXT of 2Th2:1 is solely covering our Rapture (the chpt is covering our Rapture and ITS RELATION, TIME-WISE, TO the time period known as "the Day of the Lord" [commencing with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" of many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL] to follow that INITIAL one; i.e. SEAL #1 / the ARRIVAL of the man of sin IN HIS TIME-2Th2:9[Dan9:27a(26)] / "G5100 - tis - 'a certain one'-Mt24:4&Mk13:5 ] )

Recall, I said "parousia" (WHERE / LOCATION) depends on CONTEXT (it is used of both "IN THE AIR" and His "RETURN" to the earth... not at the same point in time though)

The word "apostasia" simply means "departure"... the CONTEXT itself defines "WHAT KIND" of departure is meant. The word was used in that era of "the departing of a fever" or "the departure of a boat from a dock" (i.e. geographical / spatial "departure"... so this is a legitimate usage of that word).

There is NO "redefining" of that word. It is its most basic definition ("departure"). And in this context it is "THE Departure" (very specific one, already referred to in the context).

^ On page 93 of my Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon Abridged ("Typeset in 2007 in larger type from the original, for easy reading and copied from the edition of 1909") the entry for "apostasia" states:

"a standing away from, and so 1. a defection, revolt. 2. departure or removal from. 3. distance, interval."


[bold mine]

"apo" and "stasia" - a standing away from [a previous standing]… and I'll go retrieve where the word "[a] standing" is used of "the Church which is His body" in some other context (pretty sure time will run out for THIS post, but that's the aim... )

Correction, the one I was thinking of presently was this (INSTEAD): "[re: histemi"/"apostasia"] "the Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy places, the first tabernacle having yet a standing/stasin [G4714 - stasis]" Heb 9:8 YLT. From base of "histemi" [see below]


...and from BibleHub, under "Word-Helps":

"646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

[bold and underline mine]


These are just additional thoughts on the subject.

The basic definition of "apostasia" is just "departure" and CONTEXT helps determine "WHAT KIND" of departure is meant. [in Acts 21:21 "a departure FROM MOSES" is meant, due to the contextual clues of these clarifying words "FROM MOSES"--which is NOT meant in the 2Th2 context! ]

My apologies. I don't know how I completely overlooked this post of yours... I guess I started at the bottom, and after making all those posts, am just now seeing this one. I'm going to have to get back to this one later, as I need to go eat breakfast (HUNGRY! ) I apologize! [back later... and it might be much later depending on if "work" catches on to me, we shall see...]

Still, this is one of those scenarios where it appears you would interpret the grammar this way only if you were pre-trib. One of the problems with your argument is that you have to throw out a bunch of Greek terms and really argue minutia that most readers on here will not be able to follow. What level of Classical or Koine Greek language education do you have? I have an acquaintance who was chair of Greek at a state university who is a believer who often lamented about the Greek arguments preachers made and liked to use Rashi's method of showing counter examples from actual texts to disprove these arguments. I recall his making a crack online about 'Baptist aorists.'

I look at Revelation 19:7, and it does make sense to put this in a past tense if the time for the wedding has arrived, and then Jesus comes back, as He does not too many verses later. The time has come, the announcement is made, then it happens. This is more an issue of semantics than Greek grammar, IMO. The aorist can be used to refer to future events in some cases, as well.

The problem with pre-trib is the lack of scripture that actually teaches it? Where is it actually in the Bible? You get all these people who accept the pre-trib argument, and then start arguing grammatical issues like you are, or arguing off of weak loose reasoning (E.g. not appointed unto wrath, etc.), but there is no narrative or direct statement that teaches a pre-trib rapture, and if we follow the narrative and didactic passages, Jesus comes back and the church is raptured at His coming.

So many people are indoctrinated so heavily into pre-trib, that when the preacher's assert the pre-trib scenario, taking a verse or two here and there that does not teach it in context, they believe pre-trib.

Look at the events Paul says happen at the coming of Christ, at the parousia in II Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
and

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

These two verses are in the very same chapter. Now, pre-trib has the judgment of the man of sin, the beast, happening at the end of the tribulation. So to be consistent, they should acknowledge that the Lord's coming happens at the end of the tribulation. IN verse 1, it speaks of our gathering together unto him. He's writing to Thessalonian beleivers in Jesus, many of whom are Gentiles, not the whole nation of Israel. The 'gathering' here is the rapture.

So it makes sense that the rapture happens at the end of the tribulation. This fits with the gathering of the elect occuring at the coming of the Son of Man after the tribulation in Matthew 24.

Why is it that pre-trib arguments are always so loose, like yours above-- like the idea that an announcemnt that the wedding 'is come' in the aorist must means the rapture already happened. Semantically, that's really stretching an argument right there. But pre-trib just doesn't deal with the arguments that contradict it.

When I ask pre-tribbers why the church is here when Jesus comes back in II Thessalonisn 1, and why He is executing vengence on the unbelievers there when He comes to be glorified in the saints, and how they could possibly reconcile that with pre-trib, I've never seen anyone be able to type out a clear cohesive response. But yet they go back to trying to interpret passages that won't fit through the grid of pre-trib, with no evidence for the theory.

If there were some Bible that actually taught pre-trib, I could understand trying to work other passage into the pre-trib mold. But I just don't see those passages at all. Where are they? Why base a whole theology based on loose arguments contrary to what the more direct passages teach in a plain literal way?

Again, something loose. Let's look at the passage:
36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.

This is a description of scenarios where servants might wait for someone to return. Weddings were drawn out situations. They did not have cell phones back then. I would assume normally a land-owner might return to his household some time around sunset to settle in for the evening when it was dark. But weddings might go on and on, so the servants had to be ready. Theives breaking in or stealing stuff around the house at night might have been a big concern, too. Another analogy.

You are arguing doctrine off of something loose here-- insisting the analogy about being prepared at odd hours for a man to come back from a wedding-- actually means the wedding happens first.

How does this make sense? The disciples are the ones doing the waiting. In Matthew 24, the end times conversation is directed toward disciples. So why should be believers who believed in Jesus long before a period that starts 7 years before the second coming have to be ready and waiting for Jesus to come back for them after the rapture of the church. That just doesn't make sense.

The parousia is the Second Coming.

Do you believe in two second Comings or in a second and Third Coming?

^ presidente, briefly, regarding 2Th1:7 (you inquire about), the text reads "ye who are troubled repose/rest with us in the revelation"... note: the word "when" is not in the text, and the idea of "will RECEIVE rest WHEN..." is not what is being conveyed here.

Additionally, 2Th2:10-12 is juxtaposed with 2Th1:10b (BOTH happening in that future TIME PERIOD)… all a part of the same entire context. When we see "the Day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" used within the same contexts (as it is here in this 2Th1&2 context [as in OT prophetic contexts as well]), it is referring to the SAME, FUTURE TIME PERIOD, so 1:10b makes it clear that it is not referring to "a SINGULAR, 24-HR DAY" (but a TIME PERIOD of some duration, and which they were already well aware of "WHAT" it is, and had perfectly REASONABLE reasonings for believing [tho wrongly] that it "IS PRESENT" (as they were being convinced by others was the case)--2Th1:4 states their present and ongoing tribulations and persecutions they were suffering; they were not under any delusion that a singular 24-hr day was "IS PRESENT").

The Thessalonians wrongly believed "the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT" (2:2 [see Paul's exhortation at the other end, 2:15 also]), and in verse 3 he is telling them WHY it is NOT SO... and that is because: "that day [the day of the Lord FROM VERSE 2, the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING verse, i.e. the TIME PERIOD] will NOT be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FIRST [ONE THING / ONE EVENT *FIRST*] and the man of sin be revealed [<---THIS part ONLY is SEAL #1, etc (I supplied all the other parallels, such as the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" etc)]



As for the other Q, "the MARRIAGE" itself is distinct from "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" (outta time!)

2 Thessalonians 2 (pertaining to "the man of sin" aspect of the chpt), is covering ALL 7 YRS: his ARRIVAL/COMING/REVEALED at the BEGINNING [2Th2:9a, and others], his MIDDLE [2Th2:4], AND his END [2Th2:8]… JUST AS Daniel 9:27[26] covers ALL 7 YRS also with a BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END (in that verse... or two [if you include the "COME/COMING" stated in v.26 regarding him])


The idea of the SEQUENCE being "the departure [rapture] FIRST" and then the man of sin be revealed is supplied 3x in 2Th2, and is the SAME SEQUENCE as was given in 1Th4 through chpt 5.

^ In my post #97, when I point out that 2Th2:10-12 is juxtaposed with 2Th1:10b, I'm saying that "IN THAT DAY / THE DAY OF THE LORD [future, earthly TIME PERIOD]" people will believe ONE of these two things:

--they will [either] come to believe [what is stated in] 2Th1:10b, OR

--they will believe [what is stated in] 2Th2:10-12


[each of these ^ "beliefs" takes place DURING "the Day of the Lord / IN THAT DAY [time period]" AFTER the Rapture of "the Church which is His body" (i.e. in the 7-yr trib leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom [aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER," aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth, upon His RETURN there]," aka "the age [singular] to come"...)]

Do you know of any scriptures that state that the Church "era" ends and another "era" begins (the era of Israel, again) where Sabbath and other O.Tlaws are brought back?