Last Trump

What do I need to wise up about? You're still doing it.
Thanks for the great refutation - I can see we're arguing with an unarmed person.

[ September 28, 2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Because I asked where is the Lord's coming, the gathering, the clouds, or angels mentioned in 1 Cor 15:51-52? These things are mentioned not only in Matt 24:29-31, but ALSO 1 Thess 4:16-17. You answered (thinking I was comparing to Matt 24) and said that they are not present because a different event was in view. But I was asking, comparing to 1 Thess 4:16-17. If these things not being mentioned when compared to Matt 24 mean a different event is in view, then you must conclude 1 Cor 15:51-52 is a different event from 1 Thess 4:16-17 for the same reason. That just illustrates my point, that you connect one passage to 1 Thess 4:16-17 that has less in common than the third passage has.

But here is another thought I had about the three passages: you've been asking where the resurrection is mentioned in Matt 24:29-31, and that seems to be a sticking point for some reason, preventing you from connecting the three passages together (even though 1 Cor 15:51-52 doesn't even mention the Lord's coming, and technically doesn't even mention the rapture (it only mentioned "change"), but you have no problems connecting it to 1 Thess 4:16-17 despite what is missing). Consider that Rev 20:4-5 mentions a resurrection of saints that had been beheaded during the tribulation (I assume you take the typical premill interpretation of this passage). Thus, whether one is (premill) posttrib or pretrib, there is a resurrection after the trib. Therefore, we can know that there is a resurrection taking place in Matt 24:29-31 *even though it is not specifically mentioned* in that passage.

 

Brian T.
You said,"Consider that Rev 20:4-5 mentions a resurrection of saints that had been beheaded during the tribulation (I assume you take the typical premill interpretation of this passage). Thus, whether one is (premill) posttrib or pretrib, there is a resurrection after the trib."
The resurrection programme includes several resurrections begining with Christ's, the one before the tribulation is for the church the one after for Israel and the tribulation saints. It seems to me that the real problem here is one of interpretation and some who have posted cannot except that there is no need to read the church back into everything.

 

Dr Steve,
If I may be so bold...what is your doctorate in?
Also, your profile says you are a pastor. May I ask - pastor of what?
Thanks

 

I agree that the resurrections began with Christ's. But 1 Cor 15:23 says "Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." The word "coming" here is "parousia". It is the word the disciples used in their question in Matt 24:3, and in Christ's response in Matt 24:27,37,39. It is at the "parousia" that the antichrist is destroyed (2 Thess 2:8). There is *no scriptural reason* to separate the resurrection of the church from the resurrection after the trib, and there are *many scriptural reasons* to see them as the same event.

No, that is not the problem. The problem is that you saw Matt 24:29-31 as a separate event because it does not specifically mention a "resurrection", but when I show that even the pretrib requires one to take place at this time because of Rev 20:4-6, and thus your reason for separating Matt 24:29-31 from 1 Thess 4:16-17 is non-existent, you ignore the point. And you also ignore that the apotles (who asked the question) are part of the church.

 

It would seem to me that optional is more concerned with spelling mistakes and personal attacks than truth. May i appeal to optional to get with the programme.

 

Brian T, thank you for your reply and for being prepared to debate the issue unlike some who prefare to resort to slanging matches. My reason for stating that Mt24 cannot be equated with 1Cor 15 &1Thess4 is as already intimated the absence of any reference to the resurrection and rapture of the church either stated or implied. A question, when did the disciples become members of the church? My understanding is that the church began at pentecost.

 

But do you not believe that one *does* take place during the events of Matt 24:29-31 even though it is not explicitly mentioned, because of what is stated in Rev 20:4-6?

Also, a point I seem to keep repeating, is that if the lack of explicitly mentioning a specific detail means we must disconnect the passages, why do you connect 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:51-52 together when they have even *less* in common? How do you even connect the 4 gospels together, since they each add things and leave things out when compared to each other?

So you're saying that Christ's answer to them was only valid for a few weeks, until 50 days after the resurrection, and after that they could disregard his teachings? That seems very strange to me.

 

What are you talking about? Who cares about spelling mistakes? What are you being paranoid about? Please submit where I mentioned spelling mistakes.
May I appeal to Dr Steve to stop the insults? Personal attacks? You sir are the one changing people's names insultingly and trying some weird twist to what people actually say and now accusing me of personal attacks.
I demand you submit the post where you were insulted or attacked or retract. I will await anxiously.
I asked very nicely to supply your doctorate and pastor.

Most would be proud to do so. Instead you attacked me. Interesting.
Maybe... maybe it's you who need to get with the program(me).

[ September 28, 2002, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

Brian T.
You wanted scriptural evidence for the pre trib rapture.
he promise of exemption from the trib in Rev3 v10,
the imminency of thre return.
the promise of exemption from wrath.
the presence of the church in heaven bfore the trib Rev4v4.
Here are a few points.
Perhaps we should start another thread.

 

I also wanted you to stop ignoring my point about the resurrection and Matt 24:29-31.

Rev 3:10 was written primarily to the church in Philadelphia. If this verse is a promise of rapture, it was a lie to them for they were not raptured. The verse says nothing about *how* the Lord will keep. In fact, the word "from" is the Greek "ek". It is the same word used a few verses later in verse 18: "buy of me gold tried in the fire"

Pretribbers usually misunderstand "imminency". It does not mean "at any time, nothing else must happen first", but rather it means "impending". Christ prophesied that Peter would live to be an old man (John 21:18-19). Also that Paul would preach before kings, and that the gospel had to go throughout the whole world. The pretrib concept of "imminence" could not be true for these people before the prophecies were fulfilled, so the verses that speak about the concept of imminency cannot mean it in the way pretribbers want it to mean it - time cannot change the meaning of scripture.

How does this prove pretrib? Posttrib fully affirms exemption from wrath. God's wrath is not directed at the church. I personally also believe that "wrath" is only the final destruction, not the entire trib. The first mention of "wrath" in Revelation is in 6:17-18. This parallels Matt 24:29-30, which is "immediately after the tribulation".

Also note that 1 Thess 5:9 says "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ". This cannot be talking about the tribulation in general, for even pretrib acknowledges there are saints in the trib. Are they "appointed to wrath" or "to obtain salvation"? You can't have it both ways.

Lastly, Rom 1:18 says some of God's wrath is already revealed - yet none of us have been raptured. Thus not only is it possible, but it is normal to be on earth while God's wrath is revealed, and not be "appointed" to it or have it directed at us.

Rev 4:4 does not mention the church, it mentions 24 elders. It is a non-literal interpration that these 24 elders are the church, and I disagree with that interpretation. Why should I not believe the 24 elders and the 4 beasts are not just angelic beings? Why do they have vials containing the prayers of the saints, if they *are* the saints (Rev 5:8)? How can they be the church if they are so incredibly outnumbered by the "trib saints" (Rev 5:11)? How could John talk to them if John *was* them (Rev 7:13)?

God bless,
Brian

 

How about stopping the insults, Murph? Is Dr Steve not guilty of anything?

 

Brian T.
Thanks for your prompt reply. I will reply to these points a little later due to preasure on my time at present, sit tight, if the thread closes then we should start another on the subject

 

"he promise of exemption from the trib in Rev3 v10,"

Is not a promise to be raptured out of tribulation.

1) The verb used (tereo) does not connote removal, If removal were being contemplated then "airo" would have been better.

2) We lack sufficient justifcation from koine greek of the NT period for the idea of "ek" meaning "physcial removal to a place outside of".

3) The two closest parallels to Rev. 3:10 in terms of greek construction, Acts 15:29 and John 17:15 argues against the pre-trib understanding. Especially the johanine passage since it is a) the exact same construction as Rev. 3:10, and b) actually obviously means in context to be prtoected from the power of Satan, not physically removed outside Satan's person. It speaks of divine protection whikle the disciles are stil in this present evil age and still on this world which has Satan for its god.

I agree with what Brian T says about the rest. Great job Brian!

 

No hurry. I'm not anxious to be involved in a big debate, I'm just responding as I also have time and interest.

In my last reply, I said that seeing the 24 elders as symbolic of the church is a non-literal interpretation. I guess this is not really true, for I realize that literal interpretation allows for symbols, just those symbols represent literal things. So I guess from that perspective, that interpretation falls under "literal". I just meant that understanding the 24 elders as not symbolic, but actually literally 24 beings, does not make the passage nonsensical, and is more literal, so why not go with it?

 

BRian T.
Re resurrection in Mt 24, i am not ignoring the point, but it is no where to be found in this passage.True, there will be a post trib resurrection of Israel and trib saints, but the church has already been resurected and raptured by this point. However Mt 24 does not mention even a post trib resurrection. As for the other points we discussed i will answer them one by one over the next few days. Look forward to engaging in debate.

 

Latreia. Please consider these points.
The promise to the church at Philadelphia is claimed by pretribulationalists and posttribulationalists alike in support of their positions. Both would agree that while this promise was made to a literal church at a specific time in history, that it has an application to the whole church in respect of the future tribulation period. The phrase in 3v10 “which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth” indicates that the preservation promised the Philadelphians is in relation to a specific period of time. In view is the well known hour of testing, the tribulation which precedes the return of Christ to the earth., cf Deut 4v26-31, Isa13v6-13, 17v4-11, Jer30v4-11, Eze20v33-38, Dan9v27, 12v1, Zech14v1-4, Mt24v9-31. The question is though what exactly is the nature of the promise made here to the church at Philadelphia in particular and the whole church in general? The word translated “keep” is the Greek word tereo meaning protect or preserve, pretribulationialists insist that the promised preservation of the church is accomplished by the removal of the church from the tribulation, whereas posttribulationalists argue that it is preservation in the tribulation that is promised. Most posttribulationalists would teach that the tribulation martyrs are members of the church the body of Christ, if this is so then one is compelled to ask, in what sense are we to understand preservation then? If multitudes of Christians are to be martyred as a result of the fierce persecution of Antichrist, how can we say that they are preserved. The posttribulational position here seems quite ludicrous. The focal point of the debate over whether Rev 3v10 promises internal preservation, such as posttribulationalists envisage, or external preservation, such as pretribulationalists believe centres on the Greek preposition ek, meaning out of. This preposition may denote and I believe it does denote, a position outside its object with no thought of prior existence within the object or of emergence from the object. There are several verses in the New Testament which contain verbal constructions with ek in which ek indicates a position outside its object. There is Jn 12v27, where the Lord Jesus prayed, “father save me from this hour,” the context quite clearly indicates that it was preservation from the coming hour that He requested, as Lk22v15, 7 Mt 26v45 show. The most important reference to examine in connection with the probable meaning of ek in Rev3v10 is Jn17v15, for here we find it used with tereo as in Rev3v10. In the first part of the verse the Lord requests that the disciples be not removed from the earth, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world,” here airo is used with ek. The significance of this is, in the case of airo with ek, the idea of motion in the verb naturally lends itself to the idea of taking (ek), in the sense of motion out from within. This points up the necessity of considering the verb and the preposition together, and not simply isolating the components of the expression. The context is also an important factor in deciding the exact force of the phrase. The disciples were in the world (17v11), so ek must mean ‘out from within’ in John 17v15a. In the second part of this verse the Lord requests preservation from the evil one, “ that thou shouldest keep them from the evil,”(evil one). When the verb and the preposition are examined in context here, it is clear that the Lord is looking for preservation outside of the evil one. The disciples were not in the evil one spiritually when Jesus offered this prayer, therefore it is obvious that what was requested was preservation outside. Added to this is the fact that tereo demands not the idea of motion, but rather of preservation in an outside position. This understanding of Jn17v15 is in agreement with the pretribulational interpretation of Rev3v10: Just as here the disciples as were not in the evil one, so there the Philadelphians were not in the hour of testing. Other references where ek is clearly used in the outside position sense, are Acts15v28-29 & Hebrews 5v7.

 

Dr. Steve:

First let me ask that you make a habit of putting in paragraph breaks for longer posts. What you have there in yoyur most recent post is a bit much to read without them. Thanks.

Now about your points:

"The promise to the church at Philadelphia is claimed by pretribulationalists and posttribulationalists alike in support of their positions. Both would agree that while this promise was made to a literal church at a specific time in history, that it has an application to the whole church in respect of the future tribulation period."

This I don't dispute.

"The question is though what exactly is the nature of the promise made here to the church at Philadelphia in particular and the whole church in general?"

Yup.

"The word translated ?keep? is the Greek word tereo meaning protect or preserve, pretribulationialists insist that the promised preservation of the church is accomplished by the removal of the church from the tribulation, whereas posttribulationalists argue that it is preservation in the tribulation that is promised."

Yes they insist that. But they lack lexical suport for that gloss. That would be one o the reasons I mentioned for post-tribbers being right.

"Most posttribulationalists would teach that the tribulation martyrs are members of the church the body of Christ, if this is so then one is compelled to ask, in what sense are we to understand preservation then?"

The most appropriate way to answer that question is to look to Scriture itself to see how it desciurbes that preservation. but this is not what youu do. You begin with an ideas to what preservation must mean in oredder ofr itto make sense to you. That I am sure you understand, being a doctror and all, is eisegesis.

"If multitudes of Christians are to be martyred as a result of the fierce persecution of Antichrist, how can we say that they are preserved. The posttribulational position here seems quite ludicrous."

If the bible teaches that preservation is something other than removal, then it is not ludicrous; it is God's plan. Again, I point out to you that the only other example in the NT of the combination of tereo ek does not mean removal.

Of course you are assuming, as I mentioned what preservation must mean. That is an assumption that you need to justify, and, I believe, one that does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

"The focal point of the debate over whether Rev 3v10 promises internal preservation, such as posttribulationalists envisage, or external preservation, such as pretribulationalists believe centres on the Greek preposition ek, meaning out of. This preposition may denote and I believe it does denote, a position outside its object with no thought of prior existence within the object or of emergence from the object."

That would be the Townsend idea. It is not valid. It relies on ek meaning physical or spatial spearation. But again, there is a distinct lack of lexical support for that gloss.

You try to say that the issue is whether there is thought of prior existence within the objerct. But this is flase, for posttribulationists can easily claim that the church is never in the realm of God's tribulation wrath.

Really what you need to establish is that ek means phsycial separation. And it does do so, very occasionally, in classical Greek, but Townsend fails to demonstrate that this meaning is present in biblical greek gebnerally, and biblical greek of the NT period in particular. In short the idea falls victim to semantic obsolesence. Townsend thus falls prey to an exegetical fallacy.

"There are several verses in the New Testament which contain verbal constructions with ek in which ek indicates a position outside its object. There is Jn 12v27, where the Lord Jesus prayed, ?father save me from this hour,? the context quite clearly indicates that it was preservation from the coming hour that He requested, as Lk22v15, 7 Mt 26v45 show."

This is incorrect. Taking 12:27 in context, we see the hour being referring to the hour of Christ's glorfication, meaning His crucifixion, death, and of course the resurrection. They are viewed as all beig part of the one "hour". While jesus is certainly asking to be saved from phsycial death, one cannot say meaningfully that being saved from death is the same thing as being placed physically outside death.

"The most important reference to examine in connection with the probable meaning of ek in Rev3v10 is Jn17v15, for here we find it used with tereo as in Rev3v10."

As I have already mentioned. did you not read the whole post, or merely the first line?

"In the first part of the verse the Lord requests that the disciples be not removed from the earth, ?I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world,? here airo is used with ek. The significance of this is, in the case of airo with ek, the idea of motion in the verb naturally lends itself to the idea of taking (ek), in the sense of motion out from within. This points up the necessity of considering the verb and the preposition together, and not simply isolating the components of the expression. The context is also an important factor in deciding the exact force of the phrase. The disciples were in the world (17v11), so ek must mean ?out from within? in John 17v15a. In the second part of this verse the Lord requests preservation from the evil one, ? that thou shouldest keep them from the evil,?(evil one). When the verb and the preposition are examined in context here, it is clear that the Lord is looking for preservation outside of the evil one. The disciples were not in the evil one spiritually when Jesus offered this prayer, therefore it is obvious that what was requested was preservation outside. Added to this is the fact that tereo demands not the idea of motion, but rather of preservation in an outside position. This understanding of Jn17v15 is in agreement with the pretribulational interpretation of Rev3v10: Just as here the disciples as were not in the evil one, so there the Philadelphians were not in the hour of testing. Other references where ek is clearly used in the outside position sense, are Acts15v28-29 & Hebrews 5v7."

It may agree with the pretreibulational position, but it is wrong.

The object of ek in the context of Jon 17:15b is of course the evil one. The question must be asked: in what way can we be placed physically outside a personal being? You can't. you can be placed outside his influence, protected from his schemes, etc. but yoyucan't meaningfully be said to be kept otside his pysiucal person.

Well I suppose you could argue that, but of course the problem is that ther never is any threat of being pysically IN the evil one to begin with! It makes nonsense of the text!

In context it is clear that Jesus is asking that the dscipies be protected from satan, the ruler of this age. He is asking from the disciples to be preserved while within the sphere of Satan's influence.
So I re-iterate: Rev. 3:10 is not a promise to be physically removed prior to the Tribulation.