Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[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?

[Omegaman 3.0]

 

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

I have a moment available that I can spend on that short question.

First off, I find that the non-Rev passages, actually cinch the deal. In Rev, I see nothing that contradicts what those other passages lay out, However, if I had to look to Revelation to make a post trib case . . .

I would note, first off that 1 Thess 4  says:

16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Those resurrected rise first, and then the living are caught up together in the clouds (like so many other passages say). The from Rev 20:

4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.) This is the first resurrection.

So, dead rise, rapture, then from Rev we see those who were persecuted to death for Jess sake. Then they come to life in the first resurrection.
1 Thess already told us, the dead risefirst, and we see this in the first resurrection which this says is after the trib. Then we who are alive, rise to meet them. That sort of places the rapture after the trib, yet again. And again, that scenario is seemless and consistant with no contradictions from scripture, only contradictions from pre-trib rapture-ists.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Ya know,, I just noticed what thread this is in. I just found myself, defending a post-trib position, against a pre-trib challenge, in a pre-wrath thread. We are in the wrong place for that discussion. Further posts pushing non pre-wrath position, I will likely move or delete, unless they are in direct response to a posting about pre-wrath. Let's try to keep these threads on topic to reduce confusion.

[Last Daze]

 

Why would God add information if it does not make the picture more complete and thus clearer? Therefore, I find Revelation gives a better idea of what to expect in the last days than the earlier parts of scripture relating to this subject. I would have little confidence on any end-time view unless I find it supported in Revelation. But, that's just me. To each his own.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy.  It all has to harmonize.  If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain.  I agree with Omegaman's approach.

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing.    

One of the maxims that I use when interpreting prophecy is to give things that are plainly stated precedence over inferences when there's a conflict.  So, if you look at all the things that are plainly stated and use them to build your framework, you're much less likely to have to engage in major reconstruction since they will take priority.  This is my preference and what makes sense to me.  Everyone's free to do as they wish.

 

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point.

Yes, plainly stated verses do have an advantage as a starting point.  Are you saying that all this "disagreement" came from people who prioritized what is plainly stated?  Maybe the issue is that they didn't.  People obviously have different approaches to the subject and come to different conclusions.  There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If they did not prioritise the 'plain' statements, it shows they agree those are not good starting points for this purpose. In the end, methods are only as good as the results they produce. I once tried to interpret Revelation using what I thought I understood of earlier end time passages, but it got me nowhere. Revelation remained a closed book. Then I decided to read Revelation as a self-contained work, without the baggage of earlier passages. It worked wonders for me. And when I went back to the other passages, it brought order to chaos. I recommend this approach to everyone.   

I'm speaking of a general principle.  There are plainly stated things in Revelation.

[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?

[Omegaman 3.0]

 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?

I would add to this topic this way. There are many passages that seem to divide a 7 year period into halves. You can find phrases like "time, times, and half a time" (3.5?) or 1260 days etc, and this is in both testaments. So, it looks as though there is a focus on that aspect. Jesus, in His Matt 24 explanation, points people to look to the book of Daniel, and especially for something he referred to as the abomination that makes desolate. People have different assessments of what that means, but it is a common one to assign this to the man of sin, the anti-Christ, the son of perdition, and other titles which are assumed to be a personage. It is also often asserted, not without scriptural evidence, that this person will sign a treaty, or make a covenant with Israel, which he will break in the middle of the 7 year period.

Looking at that Matthew passage, one sees that Jesus refers to that period, where He is describing events to come and refers to them as pains of birth, as a time were there will be tribulation, and that in the period, there will be persecution. However, he says of this time, after "you see the abomination of desolation" that there will be great tribulation.

I think one of the things we eschatologists have done over the years, is to take descriptions of things occurring in specific periods of time, and turned them into events themselves, that have proper names.

For example, some have noted that there is great tribulation, contained withing a period of time lasting 7 years, and suddenly they call it "The 7 Year Tribulation".

I think we would be a little bit better of, if we did not think of 'the tribulation' or 'the wrath of God' as time periods, but instead, see them as events which happen within certain spans of time.

In the U.S., in 2016, we plan to have a presidential election. It is a major even in that year. However, we do not call a period of time, 2016 for example: "The Presidential Election".. We recognize that the election is an event in time, not the title of the time period. I think we would be more accurate, to treat eschatology, the same way - the events as occurring within time, and not cunfuse things by titling the period, by a description of an even within that time.

That was a lot of words to say: "

I don't thing there are two tribulations, I think there is tribulation in the 7 years period that increases in intensity, especially after the mid-point. Does that help?

[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? 

[WilliamL]

"Just Will NOT Leave Heaven": ah, but what does this mean? When Jesus --

1 Thes. 4:16 ...will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

-- does this mean he has left heaven? or does leaving heaven mean this:

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4 and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...

To all of you who claim that Jesus will come with the clouds, then do the resurrection / rapture, then go back up to heaven, then spend months to years back up there, then come down to earth for Armageddon, how do you square that with Acts 1:9-11?

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? 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 1:9-11

It's not terribly complicated.  He was lifted up.  A cloud received Him.  He's out of sight.  Anyone who holds to the part in orange above, how do you justify contradicting what the angel said?

There is no contradiction at all. He left from standing upon the Mount of Olives, he will return to the Mount of Olives "the same way."

His coming in the clouds of heaven to take up his elect is not the same by any means: it is a different event entirely, which the angel did not address, because he was not given to address it, even as he was not given to address a whole lot of other End Time events.

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.

 

[Last Daze]

"Just Will NOT Leave Heaven": ah, but what does this mean? When Jesus --

1 Thes. 4:16 ...will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

-- does this mean he has left heaven? or does leaving heaven mean this:

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4 and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...

To all of you who claim that Jesus will come with the clouds, then do the resurrection / rapture, then go back up to heaven, then spend months to years back up there, then come down to earth for Armageddon, how do you square that with Acts 1:9-11?

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? 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 1:9-11

It's not terribly complicated.  He was lifted up.  A cloud received Him.  He's out of sight.  Anyone who holds to the part in orange above, how do you justify contradicting what the angel said?

There is no contradiction at all. He left from standing upon the Mount of Olives, he will return to the Mount of Olives "the same way."

His coming in the clouds of heaven to take up his elect is not the same by any means: it is a different event entirely, which the angel did not address, because he was not given to address it, even as he was not given to address a whole lot of other End Time events.

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.

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.

[WilliamL]

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 really are dodging the question in your second response.

WHEN DOES THE LORD GET HIS CLOTHES COVERED WITH THE BLOOD OF THE EDOMITES HE HAS SLAUGHTERED? IF THIS IS THE SINGLE COMING YOU TEACH, WHY IS HE ALONE AT THIS TIME, AND NOT WITH THE ARMIES OF HEAVEN?

WHERE AND BY WHOM DOES THE LORD GET HIS CLOTHES COVERED WITH BLOOD WHEN HE DESCENDS IN REV. 19 TO FIGHT THE BEAST AND THE KINGS OF THE EARTH, WITH CLOTHES ALREADY COVERED IN BLOOD?