Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Last Daze]

 

Now please address the question I posed above:

Must not this --

Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. Isaiah 63:1-3

come before this?

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. ... And he was clothed with a vesture covered in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.  And the armies which were in heaven followed him... Rev. 19:11, 13-14

 

Are not these two clearly distinct events that take place sequentially, the first before the second?

1st: alone, getting His garment stained with blood.

2nd: with the armies of heaven, with garments "having been covered/stained" -- perfect participle in the Greek.

 

As I see it, they both speak of the same event, the return of Christ.

• Christ appears in the clouds - resurrection / rapture
• He descends with His army
• Christ alone executes judgment on the winepress and carries out God's wrath on them.
• He then touches down on the Mount of Olives.

There's no reason at all to think that those are two separate events being described.  To answer your obvious objections:

• Christ alone strikes down the nations with the sword of His mouth per Rev 19:21.  He alone tramples those in the winepress.  His army may have left with him but that is an irrelevant point when it comes to that event.  He did it alone.  When it says "of the people there was none with me", its not clear who "the people" are.  It could be a reference to human help.  Even if its a reference to the army that left heaven with Him, why would they need to be there anyway?  He's taking care of it Himself.
• There is no indication that the blood on Christ's robe in Rev 19 got there as a result from treading the winepress.  Speculation.

Maybe you should lay out your sequence of event clearly.

------------

Nevermind.  Now that I've seen your propensity to fabricate things from silence, I'm not interested.  I see things as true because they're said, not because they're not said.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Last Daze
not interested

[Last Daze]

Let's look at your answer first.  The return of Christ is described as happening like this (obviously in reverse):

He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Acts 1:9

So, simply stated and according to the angel, this is how Christ returns:

• Christ becomes visible in the clouds
• Christ descends

You say His coming in the clouds is not the same....because??  The angel says it is the same.  I'll take the angel's word over yours.

This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  Acts 1:11

The angel clearly addressed Christ's coming.  The resurrection / rapture happens at His coming.  There just isn't any support for leaving heaven, coming in the clouds, back up to heaven, down to earth.  That's not how the ascension happened.

----------------------------

As for your question, you haven't show how they are related outside of garments with blood on them.

Your first response fails the logic test, because you are unconsciously adding the presumption that Jesus might not come more than once from heaven. The angel doesn't say one way or the other.

Likewise, I failed to in the same way, because I made the presumption that the angel was referring to Jesus's descent all the way onto the Mount of Olives. The angel doesn't say one way or the other.

You can't be serious.  How many times did Christ ascend?  This is bordering on the absurd.  Exactly how many times does Christ come back?  10?  20?  Can't rule it out now can you because that would be presumptuous.  There is zero support for more than one return of Christ.  Fabricate things if you wish but this is where I get off.  We clearly interpret prophecy differently.

[toknowthetruth]

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation.

I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? 

OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period.

"When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer.

And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by toknowthetruth

[ghtan]

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation.

I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? 

OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period.

"When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer.

And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. 

I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion.

As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets.

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

[toknowthetruth]

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation.

I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? 

OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period.

"When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer.

And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. 

I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion.

As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets.

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? 

Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position.

Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. 

I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years?

[ghtan]

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation.

I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? 

OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period.

"When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer.

And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. 

I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion.

As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets.

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? 

Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position.

Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. 

I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years?

I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. 

[toknowthetruth]

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation.

I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on?

Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? 

OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period.

"When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer.

And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. 

I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion.

As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets.

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? 

Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position.

Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. 

I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years?

I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. 

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? 

I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. 

I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. 

Edited September 19, 2015 by toknowthetruth

[ghtan]

I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. 

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? 

I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. 

I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. 

I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you.

Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here.

I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself?

[toknowthetruth]

I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. 

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? 

I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. 

I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. 

I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you.

Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here.

I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself?

Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here.

Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture.

But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way.

Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping!

Edited September 20, 2015 by toknowthetruth

[ghtan]

I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath. 

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? 

I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. 

I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. 

I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you.

Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here.

I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself?

Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here.

Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture.

But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way.

Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping!

Surprisingly, I think we may be making some progress. It appears you now agree the ch 7 multitude is the raptured church in heaven. (See the first statement I underlined above.) However, why then do you see this as a post-trib rapture if the GT is still to follow (see second underlined statement)?