How the Pre-Trib Rapture Became Popular in the Modern Church

  • 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.

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).​

Don Hartley
One of the possible objections to Wallace's advocacy of qualitativeness as by far the most likely semantic force (apart from a concurrent definite or indefinite nuance) is that most of the examples he provides are "mass" nouns. Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article, and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term - we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot. We can count dogs but not flesh. Some have argued that mass terms differ dramatically from count terms in the semantic force they can convey (it is sometimes argued that count terms must always be definite or indefinite and that there is no such thing as a "qualitative count noun").2 Because it is generally conceded that mass terms can exude a qualitative force, it has been argued that the statistical analyses of Harner and Dixon are weighed unfairly towards qualitative nouns, particularly when applying those statistics to THEOS, which is a count noun.

Don Hartley, a student of Dan Wallace's and research assistant on Wallace's grammar, wrote his Master's of Theology thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary on the topic of Colwell's Construction and mass / count nouns. He also published a paper derived from his thesis. Hartley's methodology is to examine every example of Colwell's Construction in the Greek New Testament. Hartley purposely leaves controversial or questionable nouns out of this sample. He then eliminates all factors that would unfairly weigh the sample towards one semantic force, such as mass terms. He carefully identifies all potential semantic forces - following Wallace, Hartley advocates qualitativeness as either a standalone semantic force, or as one that can coexist alongside definite or indefinite forces. He notes that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force (John 1:14, for example, does not teach that the Logos became The Flesh or a flesh, but rather "flesh," signifying that all the Logos possesses all the qualities or attributes of "flesh"). He therefore concludes that qualitativeness is a valid semantic category apart from definiteness or indefiniteness, and argues that this force may be applied equally to mass or count terms.

Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative: "Thus, Jesus is God in every sense the Father is" (Hartley, p. 40).

Conclusion
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:

"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."4

_______________________________
Notes

1. This objection, raised most forcefully by Harner, assumes a mathematical precision that cannot always be sustained in the pragmatics of language use. While convertible propositions usually signify 100% equivalence between subject and predicate, this need not be the case when they are preceded by an explicit statement denying 100% equivalence ("And the Word was with God"). It is doubtful that the 8th Century scribes who wrote "kai ho theos ên ho logos" in Codex L (Regius) understood what is grammatically a convertible proposition to be tantamount to Modalism. Other explanations are certainly possible, such as understanding theos to be used as a title or proper name, or taking the entire verse as a paradox.

2. This line of argument is addressed in the Jehovah's Witness/John 1:1c section of Other Views Considered (below). It has been thoroughly debated by Don Hartley and Jehovah's Witness apologist, Greg Stafford. I had a brief interaction with Greg Stafford on this subject as well. See also "Theos is a Count Noun").

3. C.f., John 3:6 "He who is born of the flesh is (by nature) flesh; he who is born of the Spirit is (by nature) spirit

4. Cf., Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity;" and the New English Translation: "and the Word was fully God." Perhaps the most accurate English translation of John 1:1 has been offered by Robert Bowman: "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity" (John, p. 27). This translation preserves the use and non-use of the article, and conveys the purely qualitative nuance of the anarthrous theos. The Dana-Mantey grammar offers essentially the same translation, sans the capital letters: "and the word was deity" (p. 148). In Colossians 2:9, Paul uses a different grammatical construction to say much the same thing about Christ's Deity.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
The mass of replies is from Apologetic Commentary online. The website itself went out of existence. I backed it up.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
In your belief, is the rapture and the return of Christ two distinct events? Does one occur before the other? Or is the rapture at the second coming of Christ? I believe there is bountiful evidence that immediately after the great tribulation, Christ returns, gathers His elect, then punishes the world with divine God power.

Once you realize that the rapture occurs when Jesus returns, then it will make a lot more sense. Personal recommendation, if you are interested, compare all of the rapture verses: Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Thessalonians 1-2, among others. Also glance over Isaiah 13 and the 6th seal in Revelation 6 then compare that to the "stars falling from heaven, the moon turning as blood, the sun not giving its light" referenced in Matthew 24. Notice that there are clear references to descending from heaven "at the last trump", as 1 Corinthians 15:52 says, in the verses I referenced. Give this an honest study and I'm positive you'll see that the rapture occurs at the return of Christ, after the great tribulation, then the day of the Lord (God's wrath) begins on the unbelieving world.
Once again

the rapture is imminent, It will have no signs, No one will know the time, And will come as a thief

The second coming is NOT imminent, (we have at least the final 7 years of daniels 70 weeks to go through yet) it WILL have signs and people WILL know the time it will happen (3.5 years after the abomination of desolation) and will not come as a theif. Because all of Gods people alive on earth will be waiting in anticipation for his return to free them from great tribulation.

They CAN NOT BE THE SAME EVENT
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
John 1:1 sounds like Gen 1 a little
I like targum reading 2 of gen 1:1 they conbine it with jer 10:12 & 51:15
from the beginning with wisdom the son of Yahweh completed the heavens
and the earth
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,678
113
Once again

the rapture is imminent, It will have no signs, No one will know the time, And will come as a thief

The second coming is NOT imminent, (we have at least the final 7 years of daniels 70 weeks to go through yet) it WILL have signs and people WILL know the time it will happen (3.5 years after the abomination of desolation) and will not come as a theif. Because all of Gods people alive on earth will be waiting in anticipation for his return to free them from great tribulation.

They CAN NOT BE THE SAME EVENT
Matthew 24:29-31 insists Jesus returns after the great tribulation to gather His elect. A study of who the elect are reveals that the elect are Christians - aka the church. Gathering the elect is rapture.

The same narrative of Jesus returning to gather His elect is repeated in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2. The rapture is solidly connected to the return of Christ.

There are also numerous other issues with the pre-trib theology. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4 says the first resurrection occurs when Jesus returns. Revelation 20 says the first resurrection includes martyred saints who refused the mark of the beast. There's your big red flag that the resurrection/rapture cannot be pre-trib without introducing contradictions into the scriptures.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Matthew 24:29-31 insists Jesus returns after the great tribulation to gather His elect. A study of who the elect are reveals that the elect are Christians - aka the church. Gathering the elect is rapture.

The same narrative of Jesus returning to gather His elect is repeated in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2. The rapture is solidly connected to the return of Christ.

There are also numerous other issues with the pre-trib theology. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4 says the first resurrection occurs when Jesus returns. Revelation 20 says the first resurrection includes martyred saints who refused the mark of the beast. There's your big red flag that the resurrection/rapture cannot be pre-trib without introducing contradictions into the scriptures.
you can say this 1000 times,

As long as you CAN NOT counter the differences between the “catching up” (rapture) and the second comming

You will never convince me.

There is far to many differences.. You can believe what you want. But I have stated why I can not belive in post trib, and you have not given me any reason to change my view.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,678
113
you can say this 1000 times,

As long as you CAN NOT counter the differences between the “catching up” (rapture) and the second comming

You will never convince me.

There is far to many differences.. You can believe what you want. But I have stated why I can not belive in post trib, and you have not given me any reason to change my view.
I've exposed errors in your doctrine and contradictions but you clearly just don't care about that. Suit yourself.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I've exposed errors in your doctrine and contradictions but you clearly just don't care about that. Suit yourself.
In your view you may think you have done that

But I have exposed problems with your supposed exposing my errors.

And you have nNOT countered any of them.

so again. I must continue to believe as I do (which is leaning towards, but not completely convinced of, pre-trib

the reason is because I see flaws with mid trib. Or most likely I would go there.

I have studied this for a few decades.. So once again, Unless you can bring me some new information I have not seen, or remedy the differences between the rapture and the second coming which I have shown you.

I can not go your way.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,259
5,616
113
Once again

the rapture is imminent, It will have no signs, No one will know the time, And will come as a thief

The second coming is NOT imminent, (we have at least the final 7 years of daniels 70 weeks to go through yet) it WILL have signs and people WILL know the time it will happen (3.5 years after the abomination of desolation) and will not come as a theif. Because all of Gods people alive on earth will be waiting in anticipation for his return to free them from great tribulation.

They CAN NOT BE THE SAME EVENT
Imminence is a faulty extra-biblical doctrine.
It's not a matter of 2 events happening at separate times.
The resurrection is one among many prophesied components of Jesus return in glory.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Imminence is a faulty extra-biblical doctrine.
It's not a matter of 2 events happening at separate times.
The resurrection is one among many prophesied components of Jesus return in glory.
That’s your view and you allowed to have it
emminence is seen as the rapture we are told could happen at any time. That’s why we are to be alert. We know not when it will happen
on the other hand we can know the time to f the second coming. We do not need to be alert. Believers at that time will be waiting with joy because of what they are suffering
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,458
460
83
This subject is going to be debated until it actually happens. And you're not going to change many people's minds with all this vain argumentation. Here's my take:

Pray for pre
Prepare for post
Amen and certainly the New Testament teaches a life of always being ready with great expectation. Watch...
 

Jamison

New member
Sep 8, 2021
2
0
1
Correct me if I'm mistaken about your view ^ here... Are you saying you believe that the word "Rapture" equals the phrase "the Day of the Lord"??



What I am saying it that these ^ are entirely distinct things:


--our "Rapture" is when WE are "CAUGHT UP / SNATCHed" ..."TO the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" ("so shall we ever be 'G4862 - UNIONed-with' the Lord"--i.e. in this manner... IOW, this is "how it's goin down"! / how it will take place: the "UNIONed-with" thing ;) );


--"the Day of the Lord" is ONLY ever located ON THE EARTH (and will unfold over time, in which MUCH will transpire)



These two are not to be equated.


I'm not certain whether you intend to equate them, however. Do you??
REV14:14 meet the LORD in the air on the cloud. harvest, voice of an angel. loud, angels are the reapers. the first fruits already gone up, to ever be with him , virgins, (not witnesses) servants.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
John 1:1 sounds like Gen 1 a little
I like targum reading 2 of gen 1:1 they conbine it with jer 10:12 & 51:15
from the beginning with wisdom the son of Yahweh completed the heavens
and the earth
link to the targum please.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
you can say this 1000 times,

As long as you CAN NOT counter the differences between the “catching up” (rapture) and the second comming

You will never convince me.

There is far to many differences.. You can believe what you want. But I have stated why I can not belive in post trib, and you have not given me any reason to change my view.
What differences ?
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
you can say this 1000 times,

As long as you CAN NOT counter the differences between the “catching up” (rapture) and the second comming

You will never convince me.

There is far to many differences.. You can believe what you want. But I have stated why I can not belive in post trib, and you have not given me any reason to change my view.
The Lord’s Coming
13 Brothers and sisters, we want you to know about those who have died. We don’t want you to be sad like other people—those who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died, but we also believe that he rose again. So we believe that God will raise to life through Jesus any who have died and bring them together with him when he comes.

15 What we tell you now is the Lord’s own message. Those of us who are still living when the Lord comes again will join him, but not before those who have already died. 16 The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. And the people who have died and were in Christ will rise first. 17 After that we who are still alive at that time will be gathered up with those who have died. We will be taken up in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air. And we will be with the Lord forever. 18 So encourage each other with these words.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,831
1,442
113
67
Brighton, MI
That’s your view and you allowed to have it
emminence is seen as the rapture we are told could happen at any time. That’s why we are to be alert. We know not when it will happen
on the other hand we can know the time to f the second coming. We do not need to be alert. Believers at that time will be waiting with joy because of what they are suffering
stop here
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The Lord’s Coming
13 Brothers and sisters, we want you to know about those who have died. We don’t want you to be sad like other people—those who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died, but we also believe that he rose again. So we believe that God will raise to life through Jesus any who have died and bring them together with him when he comes.

15 What we tell you now is the Lord’s own message. Those of us who are still living when the Lord comes again will join him, but not before those who have already died. 16 The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. And the people who have died and were in Christ will rise first. 17 After that we who are still alive at that time will be gathered up with those who have died. We will be taken up in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air. And we will be with the Lord forever. 18 So encourage each other with these words.
where does he set foot on the ground in this passage?
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,259
5,616
113
where does he set foot on the ground in this passage?
Why does he have to be described as setting foot on the ground in that passage?

If I described you in writing as sitting in your chair watching TV in one sentence and then in another sentence,
running through your neighbourhood. Does that have to be you on 2 different days?

Can it not be a description of you doing different things during the course of the same day?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Why does he have to be described as setting foot on the ground in that passage?

If I described you in writing as sitting in your chair watching TV in one sentence and then in another sentence,
running through your neighbourhood. Does that have to be you on 2 different days?


Can it not be a description of you doing different things during the course of the same day?
you have to look for things in common. There is nothing in common between the two events. In the one he meets us in the clouds in the other we come back with him as he comes to earth with his robe dipped by m blood and he puts feet on the ground
one is for the resurrection the other is for judgment
I am just showing you the differences I see. And why I think they are different.