Defense of the Mid Trib Rapture

[ghtan]

14 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Similar to what I stated before.. taken by itself, Revelation 12 might give that impression of Mid.  It is all those passages in the OT that state Israel gives birth as soon as the labor pains start or even a little before that is the kicker for looking at this as pre.  One passage in the OT I gave unequivocally states that these labor pains are the start of time of Jacob's Trouble, in Jeremiah, which has been rightly associated with the 70th week of Daniel or GT.  Where in that same passage is says Israel will be saved out of it. Thereby supporting this is the time of the GT.   The woman in Rev 12, described as she is, is a description of Israel from clear back in Genesis.   And according to Isaiah, the birth happens as soon as Israel starts labor.   And that same passage, Israel is giving birth to a nation.  Peter was very clear when he said the church is a holy nation.

The male child is the body of Christ, also what the church is called in many NT passages.  Paul elaborates many times that the believers are all parts the body.  And like the child is to rule with a rod of iron, Revelation 2:26-27 says that those who overcome will also rule beside Messiah with a rod of Iron.  

And that child is forcibly snatched up to the throne of God,  similar to John in Chapter 4.  That is the meaning of the Greek word harpazo which "caught up" is translated from in Rev 12:5.  Yeshua was never "forcibly snatched up" at either his birth or at the ascension.  Again, this has to mean the body of Messiah, the Church.  And it happens when the birth pains (GT period) begin.  Not in the middle or end of them.

Just take a closer look at the various passages.  The problem is, many do not really study OT eschatology, which is all the Bereans had when they  were commended by Paul for searching the scriptures daily to see if what he taught them was true, Acts 17:10-11.   And the Torah prescribes that a issue can only be confirmed on the testimony of two witnesses.  We have those two... the OT and the NT.  And The Revelation refers back to virtually every other book in the Bible except Ruth.  

Another problem is seeing The Revelation as only in sequential order.  Like Messiah, it is multi dimensional. I assert that many passages are like overlays of a power point presentation or putting layers of overlay film on an overhead projector.  Chapters 11-15 are parenthetical overlays that add clarity to the many events the previous chapters just like overlays on a powerpoint or overhead projector presentation.  

You think harpazo cannot apply to Jesus and thus 12:5 does not refer to him but to the end-time church. Yet you think John represents the end-time church in 4:1 even though harpazo is not used. Where is the consistency? That is why those who argue 12:5 is the rapture are usually mid-trib. But more naturally, harpazo in 12:5 is aptly used of Jesus because he was delivered from many attempts by Satan to kill him during his time on earth.    

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, ghtan said:

You think harpazo cannot apply to Jesus and thus 12:5 does not refer to him but to the end-time church. Yet you think John represents the end-time church in 4:1 even though harpazo is not used. Where is the consistency? That is why those who argue 12:5 is the rapture are usually mid-trib. But more naturally, harpazo in 12:5 is aptly used of Jesus because he was delivered from many attempts by Satan to kill him during his time on earth.    

You are implying something that wasn't stated in my post. I never stated that John in chapter 4 represents the church.  I simply stated that John was taken to the throne of God similar to where the child of Revelation 12 is taken.  I never said it was a harpazo event for John.   John clearly says that he was in the spirit in V2.  There is nothing to imply that the child of Rev 12 is in the spirit, but that it is a physical catching up.  But they are both taken to the throne of God.  That was the only similarity I mentioned.  Looking back, I probably should have stated it better.

But it still remains.... Yeshua Himself was not "harpazo" at either His birth or His ascension, yet this child is "harpazo" to the throne of God.  Thus it can only mean the body of Messiah, the Church.  And that is where John was taken in the spirit to describe what is going on there.  Paul makes it very clear that we will be "harpazo" out of here.  1 Thessalonians 4:17.

It is also the OT passages that show Israel (the woman who is also called the wife of God in the OT) is delivering at the start of the labor pains, as opposed to going thru a entire period of labor and then delivering.  And the passages also state unequivocally that Israel's labor pains are the period known as Jacob's Trouble, or what we call the Great Tribulation period.  That is the part that seems to elude those that hold Revelation 12 is a mid trib event.  They fail to take into account the OT passages that also talk about the same event.  And every passage in the OT that discusses this event talks about Israel giving birth at the beginning of the labor pains.  Not half way or at the end of the labor pains, but at the start.  And that Israel is giving birth to her children as a nation.  And Peter is unequivocal in his first letter that the church is a holy nation. 1 Peter 2:9

Chapters 11-15 are simply parenthetical chapters from a differing perspective of the events of chapters 4-10.  What also leads to some seeing this as a mid trib event is that they fail to see that 11-15 are like a powerpoint presentation where overlays are put on top of the other previous chapters to enhance the picture of what is transpiring. Compare Revelation 4:10-11 with Revelation 15:3-4 for instance.  And many other comparison can be made.  

Edited September 19, 2017 by OldCoot

[ghtan]

3 hours ago, OldCoot said:

You are implying something that wasn't stated in my post. I never stated that John in chapter 4 represents the church.  I simply stated that John was taken to the throne of God similar to where the child of Revelation 12 is taken.  I never said it was a harpazo event for John.   John clearly says that he was in the spirit in V2.  There is nothing to imply that the child of Rev 12 is in the spirit, but that it is a physical catching up.  But they are both taken to the throne of God.  That was the only similarity I mentioned.  Looking back, I probably should have stated it better.

But it still remains.... Yeshua Himself was not "harpazo" at either His birth or His ascension, yet this child is "harpazo" to the throne of God.  Thus it can only mean the body of Messiah, the Church.  And that is where John was taken in the spirit to describe what is going on there.  Paul makes it very clear that we will be "harpazo" out of here.  1 Thessalonians 4:17.

It is also the OT passages that show Israel (the woman who is also called the wife of God in the OT) is delivering at the start of the labor pains, as opposed to going thru a entire period of labor and then delivering.  And the passages also state unequivocally that Israel's labor pains are the period known as Jacob's Trouble, or what we call the Great Tribulation period.  That is the part that seems to elude those that hold Revelation 12 is a mid trib event.  They fail to take into account the OT passages that also talk about the same event.  And every passage in the OT that discusses this event talks about Israel giving birth at the beginning of the labor pains.  Not half way or at the end of the labor pains, but at the start.  And that Israel is giving birth to her children as a nation.  And Peter is unequivocal in his first letter that the church is a holy nation. 1 Peter 2:9

Chapters 11-15 are simply parenthetical chapters from a differing perspective of the events of chapters 4-10.  What also leads to some seeing this as a mid trib event is that they fail to see that 11-15 are like a powerpoint presentation where overlays are put on top of the other previous chapters to enhance the picture of what is transpiring. Compare Revelation 4:10-11 with Revelation 15:3-4 for instance.  And many other comparison can be made.  

Apologies if I misunderstood you. Does that mean you do not see 4:1 as the rapture? If you still do, on what basis then? If on the basis of the OT, are you not then letting the OT dictate how you read Rev? As I said earlier, I think that is unnecessary because Rev is largely self-explanatory. In any case, I have in the past looked at those OT scriptures but found that none requires us to take a pretrib view.

Btw, do you read the 144,000 in Rev 7 as Jews? I'm not starting a different topic but it is related to what we are talking about.

[OldCoot]

2 hours ago, ghtan said:

Apologies if I misunderstood you. Does that mean you do not see 4:1 as the rapture? If you still do, on what basis then? If on the basis of the OT, are you not then letting the OT dictate how you read Rev? As I said earlier, I think that is unnecessary because Rev is largely self-explanatory. In any case, I have in the past looked at those OT scriptures but found that none requires us to take a pretrib view.

Btw, do you read the 144,000 in Rev 7 as Jews? I'm not starting a different topic but it is related to what we are talking about.

I see Revelation 12 as the removal of the righteous more than Revelation 4.  While I do see Revelation 4 as the church is at the throne of God, there is nothing there that describes a removal like 12 does. Only implied.   I understand how many have viewed John being brought up to the throne of God as "symbolic" of the church being removed, that was always a little rough for me to see.  It was just John.  But Revelation 12, now that is far more apropos in light of the rest of scripture.  The main aspect in Revelation 4 that confirms for me that it is the church in view, is that the 24 elders all have crowns.  That would seem to imply the various rewards have been given to the church at that time.  And given the events going on at the throne from Revelation 4 on, it would seem that Satan and his flunkies are out of there, having been cast out.  Probably at almost the same time as the church has been removed from here.

I do see the 144K as Jews. Kinda hard not to when 12K of each of the 12 tribes is detailed like it is.  I believe that when God takes the time to describe things in that much detail, He generally means what He says and says what He means.  And after all, the present church is out of there in my opinion, the main purpose of the GT is getting Israel to finally acknowledge their Messiah (Hosea 5:15 and Matthew 23:39), and the two witnesses are most likely Jewish also.  Some have speculated they are Moses and Elijah, but I really don't focus that deep on who they actually are.

There are some aspects where one could easily see a Mid trib view of things.  That is why I generally have not taken mean pot shots at people who see things that way.  As I am noted for saying, in the final analysis, we probably all have some if not most of this wrong and will end up with egg on our face.  We see things thru mortal eyes stuck in this 4 dimensions we live in.  Later, we will see things much more clearly and know for certain what God meant.  All we can do now is discuss the various aspects among ourselves of what might be occurring in the future and try to get some sort of a handle on it. After all, the end goal is the same. Just how and when we get there is in dispute. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by OldCoot

[ghtan]

13 hours ago, OldCoot said:

I see Revelation 12 as the removal of the righteous more than Revelation 4.  While I do see Revelation 4 as the church is at the throne of God, there is nothing there that describes a removal like 12 does. Only implied.   I understand how many have viewed John being brought up to the throne of God as "symbolic" of the church being removed, that was always a little rough for me to see.  It was just John.  But Revelation 12, now that is far more apropos in light of the rest of scripture.  The main aspect in Revelation 4 that confirms for me that it is the church in view, is that the 24 elders all have crowns.  That would seem to imply the various rewards have been given to the church at that time.  And given the events going on at the throne from Revelation 4 on, it would seem that Satan and his flunkies are out of there, having been cast out.  Probably at almost the same time as the church has been removed from here.

I do see the 144K as Jews. Kinda hard not to when 12K of each of the 12 tribes is detailed like it is.  I believe that when God takes the time to describe things in that much detail, He generally means what He says and says what He means.  And after all, the present church is out of there in my opinion, the main purpose of the GT is getting Israel to finally acknowledge their Messiah (Hosea 5:15 and Matthew 23:39), and the two witnesses are most likely Jewish also.  Some have speculated they are Moses and Elijah, but I really don't focus that deep on who they actually are.

There are some aspects where one could easily see a Mid trib view of things.  That is why I generally have not taken mean pot shots at people who see things that way.  As I am noted for saying, in the final analysis, we probably all have some if not most of this wrong and will end up with egg on our face.  We see things thru mortal eyes stuck in this 4 dimensions we live in.  Later, we will see things much more clearly and know for certain what God meant.  All we can do now is discuss the various aspects among ourselves of what might be occurring in the future and try to get some sort of a handle on it. After all, the end goal is the same. Just how and when we get there is in dispute. 

The reason I asked about the 144k is that those who argue they are gentiles use a similar argument to what you are using for 12:5. They say nowhere in the bible are Jews referred to by the same twelve tribes listed in ch 7. However, I agree with you that the natural reading is that they are Jews. In the same way, even though the word harpazo is not used of Jesus elsewhere, the natural way to read 12:5 is that it refers to Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that preterists and amils - both have no vested interest in any rapture timing - also think 12:5 refers to Jesus.   

[OldCoot]

2 hours ago, ghtan said:

The reason I asked about the 144k is that those who argue they are gentiles use a similar argument to what you are using for 12:5. They say nowhere in the bible are Jews referred to by the same twelve tribes listed in ch 7. However, I agree with you that the natural reading is that they are Jews. In the same way, even though the word harpazo is not used of Jesus elsewhere, the natural way to read 12:5 is that it refers to Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that preterists and amils - both have no vested interest in any rapture timing - also think 12:5 refers to Jesus.   

Well, like many prophecies, Revelation 12 could have a dual application.  The woman being Mary and the child Yeshua in a singular sense.  And in a corporate sense, Israel and the Body of Messiah, the Church.   Similar to the abomination of desolation prophecy.  Antiochus was one application, or foreshadowing of it, and the future false messiah is the full application as mentioned by Yeshua.  

To be fair in all of this, for many years I viewed Revelation 12 as a picture of Messiah's first coming.  Mostly because of what others said.  When I started really getting into it and looking back at OT references to "labor", "birth pains", etc as they pertained to Israel and the period called "time of Jacob's trouble" and "Tribulation", then my view changed completely to what it is now.  That it is Israel giving birth to the Church which was conceived at Shavuot (Pentacost) in Jerusalem by the HS, just as the HS conceived Yeshua in Mary.  And combined with the other OT texts the unequivocally state that the dead are raised and are hidden along with the living righteous during this time period just solidified that position.  On top of that, while the Church is called the "bride of Christ" in some passages, likewise Israel is called the wife of God in the OT. 

I also think it is valid to use the OT as supporting evidence when reading Revelation, or any other NT book.  The Mosaic Law states that an issue can only be confirmed on the testimony of at least two witnesses.  I see those witnesses as the OT and the NT.   The Bereans were commended by Paul for searching the scripture daily to see if what he taught them was true.  All they had was the OT at that time.  So it would seem that the OT should be held on equal footing with the NT when it comes to these things. It is all one Bible given to us by the same God.

Allow me to also state, ghtan, that I applaud your reasoned dialogue about this. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but we can discuss it like adults and share our ideas about it.  That is the way all doctrinal discussions should occur.  I hope many others are taking notice.  It is so disconcerting to see food fights over these kinds of issues.

Edited September 20, 2017 by OldCoot

[ghtan]

5 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Well, like many prophecies, Revelation 12 could have a dual application.  The woman being Mary and the child Yeshua in a singular sense.  And in a corporate sense, Israel and the Body of Messiah, the Church.   Similar to the abomination of desolation prophecy.  Antiochus was one application, or foreshadowing of it, and the future false messiah is the full application as mentioned by Yeshua.  

To be fair in all of this, for many years I viewed Revelation 12 as a picture of Messiah's first coming.  Mostly because of what others said.  When I started really getting into it and looking back at OT references to "labor", "birth pains", etc as they pertained to Israel and the period called "time of Jacob's trouble" and "Tribulation", then my view changed completely to what it is now.  That it is Israel giving birth to the Church which was conceived at Shavuot (Pentacost) in Jerusalem by the HS, just as the HS conceived Yeshua in Mary.  And combined with the other OT texts the unequivocally state that the dead are raised and are hidden along with the living righteous during this time period just solidified that position.  On top of that, while the Church is called the "bride of Christ" in some passages, likewise Israel is called the wife of God in the OT. 

I also think it is valid to use the OT as supporting evidence when reading Revelation, or any other NT book.  The Mosaic Law states that an issue can only be confirmed on the testimony of at least two witnesses.  I see those witnesses as the OT and the NT.   The Bereans were commended by Paul for searching the scripture daily to see if what he taught them was true.  All they had was the OT at that time.  So it would seem that the OT should be held on equal footing with the NT when it comes to these things. It is all one Bible given to us by the same God.

Allow me to also state, ghtan, that I applaud your reasoned dialogue about this. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but we can discuss it like adults and share our ideas about it.  That is the way all doctrinal discussions should occur.  I hope many others are taking notice.  It is so disconcerting to see food fights over these kinds of issues.

Agree, it is more satisfying to exchange ideas than trade punches. I think most of us come to this forum with fairly set views which are unlikely to change anyway. To the extent that we are comfortable with our own views, we would less likely be offended when questioned about them.

The view that some prophecies have dual fulfilment is a common one. I used to think so myself. Until one day I tried to list them. Then I realised they are actually quite rare. The vast majority (99%?) of prophecies are single fulfilment. I think when any prophecy is meant to have dual fulfilment, the text would indicate it quite clearly. I honestly don’t see anything in Rev 12:5 to suggest it.

As for the need to use the OT to help us understand Rev, I can’t think of any other book in the bible that requires external help, can you? If other bible books are self-explanatory, why should Rev be any different? God as a good communicator would make it easy for his readers to understand what he has to say, especially as John’s original readers likely did not have the luxury of owing a personal copy of the OT and surely not the NT which had yet to be compiled.       

 

[OldCoot]

2 hours ago, ghtan said:

As for the need to use the OT to help us understand Rev, I can’t think of any other book in the bible that requires external help, can you? If other bible books are self-explanatory, why should Rev be any different? God as a good communicator would make it easy for his readers to understand what he has to say, especially as John’s original readers likely did not have the luxury of owing a personal copy of the OT and surely not the NT which had yet to be compiled.       

 

You are correct, no book in the Bible requires external help to understand the rudimentary concepts the book is making.  But even many times even the authors of NT books will use quotations and allusions to OT passages. Can you think of one NT book that doesn't?     

The Bible is an integrated message system written by over 40 authors over thousands of years that is delivered in a hostile environment and subject to hostile jamming.  Pages can be ripped out of the Bible, yet the message remains.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  Here a little, there a little. It is not divided into doctrinal sections.  It is a holographic image, where parts of the bible  can be removed, yet the picture remains, just like a hologram, but the resolution is lower when books or sections are removed.   By utilizing the OT in supporting the NT and vice versa, resolution and clarity is added.  Why rely on only a black and white image looking at one book, when one can have full 3D hi def resolution by applying all relevant scripture?

And it is only looking at the lower resolution image that leads to the wildly different doctrinal positions, including eschatology, we see around us today. Small discrepancies in what we see can be expected among us, but some differences are so pronounced that they can only come from a lack of applying all the scripture.

[ghtan]

13 hours ago, OldCoot said:

You are correct, no book in the Bible requires external help to understand the rudimentary concepts the book is making.  But even many times even the authors of NT books will use quotations and allusions to OT passages. Can you think of one NT book that doesn't?     

The Bible is an integrated message system written by over 40 authors over thousands of years that is delivered in a hostile environment and subject to hostile jamming.  Pages can be ripped out of the Bible, yet the message remains.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  Here a little, there a little. It is not divided into doctrinal sections.  It is a holographic image, where parts of the bible  can be removed, yet the picture remains, just like a hologram, but the resolution is lower when books or sections are removed.   By utilizing the OT in supporting the NT and vice versa, resolution and clarity is added.  Why rely on only a black and white image looking at one book, when one can have full 3D hi def resolution by applying all relevant scripture?

And it is only looking at the lower resolution image that leads to the wildly different doctrinal positions, including eschatology, we see around us today. Small discrepancies in what we see can be expected among us, but some differences are so pronounced that they can only come from a lack of applying all the scripture.

Hi there.

Agree, all NT books quote or allude to the OT. But they do so to support the natural reading of the text. It is rare if at all that a different meaning results from referring to the OT text.

Indeed if you think John intends to picture the rapture with a snatching up, why not go for the snatching up of the two witnesses in ch 11? Two grown ups surely symbolise the church better than one baby. Moreover, they are called lampstands (11:4) which earlier on in 1:20 were used as symbols of the church. A much stronger claim overall, don't you think?

   

[OldCoot]

16 minutes ago, ghtan said:

Hi there.

Agree, all NT books quote or allude to the OT. But they do so to support the natural reading of the text. It is rare if at all that a different meaning results from referring to the OT text.

Indeed if you think John intends to picture the rapture with a snatching up, why not go for the snatching up of the two witnesses in ch 11? Two grown ups surely symbolise the church better than one baby. Moreover, they are called lampstands (11:4) which earlier on in 1:20 were used as symbols of the church. A much stronger claim overall, don't you think?

   

Probably because the Lord is intending for everyone on earth to see these two witnesses resurrected and ascend into Heaven as further testimony.  Remember, the whole world (probably via the major news networks) is viewing these two guys dead on the street and celebrating them being bumped off. But then they are resurrected right before their eyes and ascend to heaven, much to their surprise.  A lot more dramatic than just having these guys simply disappear or get snatched away.  Don't you get that from the natural reading of Revelation 11 regarding them?  

Harpazo is not the word used of their ascension, compared to the child being caught up in Revelation 12. Nor is Harpazo the word used when John is told to "come up here".  The Greek word anabaino is used which is more closely associated with rising, ascending, or being borne up.   Harpazo is a forcible snatching away, as if someone is grabbed and yanked away.  Totally different meaning.  If you were standing on the street and were within feet of getting run over by a semi truck, you would probably prefer I were to harpazo you than anabaino you, or just lift you up.  I'll let you decide on that one. 

Likewise, if all hell is about to break out on the earth, I would prefer the Lord harpazo me out of here, and quick!  Which is what He says He will do (1 Thessalonians 4:17).  Praise be to Him!

Don't you think that the witnesses being called lamp stands is appropriate?  These guys are the testimony of God, to the people on the earth.  Isn't that what the church is supposed to be here and now?  Yeshua said we are to be His witnesses (individually), right? (Acts 1:8) Same Greek word used for witnesses in that passage and in Revelation 11:3.   At least that is what I get from Yeshua regarding each of us being salt and light (Matthew 5:15) where lamp stand is also used. The same Greek word lychnia (lamp stand) is used which is from the root word lychnos, a lamp, guide, witness, testimony.