In part one of this series, I mentioned that I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false. We looked at 1 Thessalonians last week. We will look at Revelation 20 now. Does Revelation 20 teach a post-Tribulation Rapture?
The anti-pre-Trib argument seems to be based heavily on the word “first” in Revelation 20:5-6:
Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev. 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev. 20:4 Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους, καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς, καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς· καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θηρίῳ οὔτε, τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν· καὶ ἔζησαν, καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ Χριστοῦ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.
Rev. 20:5 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.
Rev. 20:6 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσι μετ’ αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.
Rev. 20:6 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσι μετ’ αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.
Supposedly the “first resurrection” cannot have several phases to it, but everyone who is in the “first resurrection” must be raised at this one point at the end of the Tribulation period, refuting a pre-Trib Rapture. This assertion about a lack of phases i the first resurrection, however, is an unwarranted assumption. Reasons include:
1.) It simply is not stated in the text anywhere.
2.) The text itself requires that the first resurrection has phases. The verbs “they lived and reigned” have the subject “they,” and the “they” is “the souls of them that were beheaded…” in the Tribulation period (vv. 4-5). The text only specifies these people as those who at this point “lived/came to life” (ἔζησαν). These are contrasted with “the rest of the dead” (20:5) who experience the second resurrection unto eternal damnation. If there are no phases to the first resurrection, then only people who are beheaded in the Tribulation period are saved, and everyone who dies before the Tribulation period is eternally lost, something contradicted by Revelation elsewhere and by many other passages of Scripture.
3.) The reason only those believers killed in the Tribulation period are raised here is because the other true believers from past ages, including the church age, were raised in Revelation 4:1, for reasons noted below. The only dead believers left are those who died in the Tribulation, so John in Revelation 20 can indicate that when these are raised “the rest of the dead” are all unsaved people. So Revelation 20 itself requires that the first resurrection has phases.
4.) The only other passage in the New Testament containing both the Greek words “first” and “resurrection” outside of Revelation 20:5-6 is:
Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
Acts 26:23 εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
Here the words “first” and “resurrection/rise” are used for the resurrection of Christ. It is highly likely that the Apostle John was familiar with the books of Luke and Acts when he wrote Revelation, and very likely that the churches in Asia Minor who got Revelation had copies of Luke and Acts by the 90s AD when Revelation was written. So it is very possible that this passage would have been in their minds as they read the book of Revelation. In any case, the conclusion that the first resurrection has phases which include the resurrection of Christ and encompasses all those who are united by faith to him, including the two witnesses in Revelation, the saints who are “caught up hither” in Revelation 4:1, and the Tribulation saints who are beheaded, is not at all refuted in Revelation 20, but is rather supported by an examination of the only other passage with the words. An opponent of pre-Trib could ask if there were any other “massive” resurrections, but note that no such adjective is contained in the text of Revelation 20, so we have no reason to deny that the resurrection of Christ, the raising of the people who came out of their graves after His resurrection as recorded in Matthew, the resurrection of the two witnesses, etc. demonstrate that “first” resurrection is set in contrast to the second resurrection of the unsaved dead rather than being an absolute statement that no other persons or groups of persons, massive or otherwise, have risen earlier.
5.) The rest of the book of Revelation teaches a pre-Trib Rapture, and Revelation 20 will not contradict the other parts of the book.
A.) Revelation 1:19 outlines the book of Revelation:
Rev. 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev. 1:19 γράψον ἃ εἶδες, καὶ ἃ εἰσί, καὶ ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα·
Revelation chapter 1 is the things which thou hast seen; Revelation chapters 2-3 are the “things which are,” and the final portion, the “things which shall be hereafter,” begins in chapter 4:1. Revelation 4:1 very explicitly alludes to Revelation 1:19:
Rev. 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Rev. 4:1 Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού, θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης μετ’ ἐμοῦ, λέγουσα, Ἀνάβα ὧδε, καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα
Note the ginomai + meta tauta in both 1:19 and 4:1. Now what happens in 4:1? A “voice … as it were of a trumpet” calls out “come up hither” (Ἀνάβα ὧδε). This is explicit language of being resurrected and caught up to heaven:
Rev. 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Rev. 11:12 καὶ ἤκουσαν φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσαν αὐτοῖς, Ἀνάβητε ὧδε. καὶ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἐθεώρησαν αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν.
What do we see in Revelation 4 after the resurrection/ascension words “come up hither” are heard? We see saints in heaven praising God around His throne. We go from “the things which are,” the church age now, when the word “church” is repeated many times, to “the things which must be hereafter,” when from 4:1 all the way through the rest of the book of Revelation until the epilogue the word “church” disappears from the book. Why is this? It is because the saints in the church have been called to “come up hither” in a pre-Trib catching up or Rapture.
Furthermore, the church at Philadelphia is given an explicit pre-Trib Rapture promise, and this promise is something that the Spirit wants all to hearken to:
Rev. 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Rev. 3:10 ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς μου, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ, τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης, πειράσαι τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
Rev. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:13 ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.
The reason why Revelation 3:10 is a pre-Trib Rapture promise is well stated by Robert Thomas in his commentary on Revelation. I will not reinvent the wheel at this point. (If you want a really good pre-Tribulational and pre-Millennial commentary on Revelation, Robert Thomas is very work reading. In fact, if I could only own one commentary on Revelation it would be that by Robert Thomas.) Affiliate links to the book on Amazon are here:
In conclusion, Revelation 20 does not disprove a pre-Trib Rapture. On the contrary, it strongly suggests that the first resurrection has phases. The earlier part of Revelation contains numbers of texts that teach a pre-Trib Rapture.
–TDR
Here is a copy of my previous comment on this forum:
‘In 1 Corinthians 15:23, it says “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”
And also in Revelation 20:4-6, the New Testament describes those of the first resurrection as having been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
So then, with this in mind, how exactly is it that there would be two raptures, a silent one and one with a trumpet and signs?
Lastly in Hebrews 11:40, we are told, “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” The context here is that “they” refers to Old Testament saints.
So another question arises: If there is a separate post-trib rapture distinct from the pre-trib one, then wouldn’t that imply that not everyone will be made perfect at the same time? Wouldn’t there actually be then two (or more) resurrections, and not one as Scripture states in 1 Corinthians, before the millenial reign? This is a serious question.’
I would firstly like to see if you had an answer to that. And just so you know – to expand on this comment a little bit, there is no contradiction with the idea that the people of “the” first resurrection (notice the greek definite article in nominative singular) includes saints from every time period up to and including the great tribulation, which as far as can be discerned continues until the beginning of chapter 7 of the book of Revelation. You will see, for evidence of that in this chapter, where it is stated “These are they which came out of great tribulation.” See the book of Revelation 7:14.
At the 6th seal, the sun and moon are darkened (end of chapter 6), which as we know, is what will happen at the time that great and terrible day of the Lord comes, according to Acts 2 as well as its source Joel 2. Christ also says specifically that “as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.” Luke 17. This same occurrence, partway through the book in chapter 6, is also the only time it is mentioned that the heaven will be rolled together as a scroll, see Isaiah 34:4 and book of Revelation 6:14.
As an aside, this fact is also mentioned in the well known hymn, “It is well with my soul,” (written before Scofield, and around the same time as Darby himself was still just starting to spread his ideas) thus linking this one event to the rapture, as we would expect from something pre-Scofield. Recall that, Scofield was the one who really popularized pre-tribulational ultradispensationalism in the first place.
Another point should be raised here regarding the fact that Christ says that “the days of the Son of man” (Luke 17:26-39) will be as it was in the days of Noah and of Lot. On the same day that the Lord appeared and the saints were removed, the flood and the fire respectively began to fall on the habitations of the wicked. Likewise, as soon as the saints are removed in the rapture, the wrath of God begins to be poured out. The necessity is to remove all of God’s people, because we are not appointed unto wrath (1 Thessalonians 5). This is the same sense as Noah being removed before the flood and Lot being removed from Sodom before the rain of fire, as Christ tells us directly in Luke 17. The judgment of God is seen, similar to the flood and the rain of fire, in the events after the sixth seal. Those that remain remark that the great day of His wrath is come, and ask, who shall be able to stand? (Revelation 6:17)
I don’t see how this is hard to understand for anyone who has spent a decent amount of time studying this.
Now, the above additional passages, in addition to my earlier post, point to a consistent fact that there is one event where all of the saints including the dead in Christ are caught up together into the clouds. 1 Corinthians 15:23 tells us that the specific order is “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” The Bible is very direct and clear about this order, and there is simply no room to fit in multiple phases. Hebrews 11:40 tells us that those who are already asleep in Christ, such as the Old Testament saints, are not going to be made perfect without us, but that all will be made perfect together. As the last verse of Hebrews 11 says, “that they without us should not be made perfect.” This suggests that they and us are made perfect together in the first resurrection. It does not say that some will be made perfect at one point, and then later others will join them. It also does not say that there are multiple raptures.
Also, Thomas, I noticed that you briefly mentioned that the events of Matthew 27:52-53 were an example of part of the rapture. Could you explain what you mean, because I do not believe I have heard this exposition from anyone before. Are you saying part of the rapture has already taken place according to that passage? If so, doesn’t that contradict Hebrews 11:40?
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:51, when he says, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,” gives no indication of a phased resurrection. He nowhere says that some of us shall be changed, and later others shall be changed. He says all. It is quite direct – and in Scripture, as we know, all means all.
I would like to hear a point from Scripture about why someone should change their mind from this after they have considered these facts, on top of what it says in both Revelation 7 and Revelation 20. Thanks.
Hello there, Anonymous.
I have difficulty following a lot of your comment. Who do you think is arguing for “two raptures, a silent one and one with a trumpet and signs?”
Could you give me sources that say Scofield popularized “pre-tribulational ultradispensationalism in the first place”? I have never heard Scofield speak of “pre-tribulational ultradispensationalism.”
In a part of your comment that I could actually follow, if the OT saints are raised with the church-age saints before the Tribulation begins, then nothing at all is contradicted in Hebrews 11:40, even if one draws the types of conclusions you are attempting to make from the verse. But it is likely better to not read all kinds of Rapture timing conclusions into Hebrews 11:40.
Maybe you could deal with the exegesis in my two part series above, and then explain what you are talking about with multiple raptures and “ultradispensational pretribulationalism,” etc. if you are looking for a profitable discussion (though I may not have time to have a big discussion).
Thanks.
Hi Thomas,
You say you have difficulty following a lot of my comment and ask who do I think is arguing for “two raptures, a silent one and one with a trumpet and signs?”
I would be glad to answer. In another article here called “Signs of the Times?,” it was specified that the rapture would occur without any signs. As it says in the second paragraph of that article on this blog (from a few weeks ago), “No signs have to occur before the rapture.” This is a repeated point of that article. I am assuming that you made this post because of everything that I wrote in the comment section over there, just a few weeks ago on this blog, where I brought up Revelation 20. You diligently replicate part of the reasoning I made there, here in this article – however, you didn’t mention most of what I said over there. You seem to have misrepresented and defined the post-trib argument for the audience here in this article. Specifically, where you say (with no source provided) that it heavily relies on the word “first” – in fact, that that is its only argument. This does a disservice to all of the other points I brought up in the previous thread. In fact, saying that the position relies singularly on that point practically amounts to a straw man argument. So, in order to clear up the misunderstanding I simply reposted what I had originally said over in that article so that we didn’t lose track. Hopefully me bringing all that context into this discussion is ok and I didn’t make my post too long in explaining it.
Anyway, if you have some problem with making my other comment visible… because maybe other people will understand it, even if you personally seem to have issues grasping it, then that is fine. This is most readily forgiven. I can acknowledge it as a concession that my post was too convincing, and that it had to be made to seem “difficult to follow.” This is as if you didn’t know exactly what I was talking about and holding back the post wasn’t just a way for you to act oblivious and resistant to the truth presented quite straightforwardly, from Scripture, in that post. If it was really that difficult to follow, as you say, then I don’t see why you would be afraid to let others see it. Maybe the fact I was posting as anonymous was part of your excuse in this regard, so I will just add a name. Maybe now you will allow the post to be seen? If not, it seems like you strongly concede that you have no real response to it.
Fortunately, I have the text of my former post saved right here. If you don’t want to allow it to be posted for some reason, I can easily repost it at any time. But that is assuming you are willing to actually have a discussion about this and not just obfuscate the whole matter while pretending you came to have an honest discussion. Maybe this is a big misunderstanding on my part, but it seems to me like you made these articles here just so that you can report back that you tried to defend your position that is honestly rather indefensible, and will blame everything on how allegedly “difficult to follow” (or I guess now you will say that I’m being “hostile” since I’m being upfront about this) I was. Am I wrong though? I’m sure that if you let other people read my former post, it wouldn’t be difficult for them. So why not let them be the judge instead of simply blocking me and proclaiming to all that it was so difficult to follow?
The rest of your reply here is not dealing with the substance of the matter I brought up in my post. Of course, nobody can actually know that without you allowing that post to be seen. The real substance of my post, such as 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 51, seems to be the part you have such a hard time following. Luke 17 is another passage of scripture that seems not to be getting through to you, as you do not mention it here despite how much I talked about it. Or at least, you are not willing to talk about that here, but instead want to deflect away from that and go off onto side topics instead of addressing or acknowledging the core argument I made.
If you are unable to carry on a discussion about either of my original posts, like I said I completely forgive you and understand. I would have difficulty arguing for pre-trib in light of those scriptures as well. So while I could just patiently repeat and restate everything that I said before, that presumes we are having a conversation in good faith, which we may not be. So instead of doing that, I will just ask you, if you like, to respond to the substance of my actual post.
Pre-trib is not really defensible in light of these Scripture passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 6, 7 and 20, exactly as I discussed before. This is in addition to Hebrews 11:40, which you did not exactly provide a response to the substance of what I was saying on that front either. The readers have no way to know that because my post, that you are responding to, is not visible. They just have to assume that you responded to the substance of my post when it is clear from reading it that you did not. But I will say it again: There are not multiple raptures, and none of these Scriptures that any of us has brought up suggests a “phased” rapture as you argue for as part of your core argument in this article.
I did directly address your exegesis about there being a “phased rapture.” Consider the following:
You said in this article, “If there are no phases to the first resurrection, then only people who are beheaded in the Tribulation period are saved, and everyone who dies before the Tribulation period is eternally lost, something contradicted by Revelation elsewhere and by many other passages of Scripture.”
Then in my blocked post I said among other things, “1 Corinthians 15:23 tells us that the specific order is “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” The Bible is very direct and clear about this order, and there is simply no room to fit in multiple phases.”
So you see that you introduced the concept of phases of rapture and I did respond directly to it. But then you say in your reply to me, “Maybe you could deal with the exegesis in my two part series above.”
But as I’ve just shown, I did deal with your article and your exegesis. I addressed the core of the article in my first post here. But the readers cannot know that as my blocked post is currently not visible which is what, I guess, you are relying on. All you have to do is make my post visible and my response to you will make sense to the majority of the readers. I guarantee it. I don’t think they will have the same difficulty following it that you have.
As for the multiple raptures aspect. I will be glad to answer that. You argue for multiple phases of raptures taking place, yet have never explained how these aren’t supposed to be multiple different raptures, because Paul tells us that this process will happen in the blink of an eye. See 1 Corinthians 15 again. It can’t happen over a long-drawn out period or in multiple phases as you suggest, according to what Paul describes as happening in the blink of an eye. What you suggest, therefore, as I have said repeatedly, is that there were multiple raptures described in Scripture: as it cannot come in phases according to 1 Corinthians chapter 15.
What I found most interesting is that you suggested that the passage in Matthew 27:52-53 was part of the rapture. If that’s really what you are saying, that would be a suggestion that part of the rapture has already occurred. I guess I’m not going to get an answer on that either though.
Thank you.
Hey Thomas,
Thanks, I just wanted to add one thing to this discussion, if you would let me post this comment. I’m not getting into this because of the want for arguing or disagreeing. I think most people already agree without sometimes being aware of it. I am aware that it says in James, “For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.” In fact, the word of God says: “foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive;”
I have to say that what I see here in this article and in this response is a misrepresentation of what has been said regarding this subject. And this is Biblically important. We can’t have people spreading bad ideas. As you know from the previous discussion on this topic, I do not like to see “them” (for lack of a better word for this non-christian group) being promoted as the people of God, I believe it is wrong as it goes directly against Scripture.
Since you both have always allowed comments made by me in the past, I was surprised by this exclusion. If I were holding or moderating a discussion, I would not do the practice of not posting someone’s argument but still posting an attempted commentary on what that person said. Beyond the practice of closing a thread without letting a person defend themselves, I find what was done here to be on the level of misrepresentation. And that was disappointing. If you would just publish the original comment that I wrote, that would certainly resolve this situation. Maybe it was just that you did what you did because I was anonymous, who knows – but the validity of the points being made shouldn’t matter as to the identity of the person making them. Have a good day.
Hello Anonymous and Andrew (same/different person?)
I actually wrote my two part series because of someone we met going house to house in our area who made a big “first” argument. I spent the time writing it to show loving help to this person, and I thought I might as well post it as well. I did not read your comments in a previous post.
I don’t have time to get into a big post-Trib discussion, especially since I suspect Dr. Brandenburg did a fine job responding, based on his overall grasp of Scripture, even though I have not read the discussion. Maybe in that discussion you already gave the places where Scofield said he believed in “pre-Trib ultradispensationalism,” two raptures, etc.
If you want to conclude I am just wanting to defend pre-Trib against the allegedly obvious post-Trib truth, go ahead. You can think I am trying to find a reason to ignore your powerful case if you like, but that simply is not the case.
Thanks.
Hi Thomas,
Yes, I am the same person. Sorry for not explaining that clearly enough.
If you have not read any of the discussion thus far, then that is fine. Anyone who is interested may read the explanations given here in response to your article about what the Bible says on this subject.
Also, I am not sure why you are only latching onto one thing I said, rather than addressing any of the points I have repeated here that are central to the discussion. That part is somewhat confusing to me. But that could just be because you haven’t read my posts, which again, that is perfectly fine. Have a good day again today!
Also, I should say, Thomas, that it is unfortunate that I won’t be getting any kind of an acknowledgement or apology from you about your decision to block my comment and attempt to misrepresent what I said initially. Instead of that, it seems like you are instead trying to make me out as being unreasonable and hard to understand, when that is far from the case. Anyone can see that just from reading the comments now that they are published. They are not that long.
If you didn’t want to get involved with a discussion in the first place, you shouldn’t have made your initial comment to try to provoke me. That comment proves that you did read my entire post. You picked out bits and pieces here and there from that first post, all of which avoided the main point. Now that the comment is visible, anyone can see what you did. Nevertheless, I do not hold these facts against you – There is no reason to. If anyone does want to have a discussion on the actual issue, I will check back periodically.
Also, Thomas, and this is my last message to you about this, it is highly unfortunate that you have chosen to handle this situation the way that you did. Not for my sake nor the readers’, but simply for your own. We should treat the truth, such as what I have been saying that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15, with a modicum of respect. Recall what is said about the discussion of God’s word in 2 Corinthians:
“Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”
If you are willing to write an entire article on this blog to continue a conversation for someone you met; who I’m sure was a very nice person; you should be willing to at least have a fair and open discussion with someone who already reads and posts here as well. That is, if you’re going to have one at all. You should be able to have that discussion if you so choose without feigning ignorance about what that other person is talking about with regard to your various provocations, and trying to make them out to be some kind of crazy person when they are simply trying to have a discussion about the truth. May God bless and keep you, as well as the readers of this website.
Andrew,
Thomas doesn’t historically take conversations with anyone here to their end. He very rarely does this. At the same time, I don’t want to allow a post-trib, replacement theology position to be presented here unless one of us are going to give it a thorough answer. I don’t believe your essays have been scriptural or persuasive, and I don’t mean that as an offense to you. I don’t have time to answer every person on here. I’m completely scripturally settled on premillennial, post tribulational from scripture. It would take a long time to deal with your long comments and that wouldn’t stop it. It would go on and on and on, and I think you should do that with your pastor. That’s what I said before. It needs to be a sit down situation, face to face. It’s possible I’ll write something longer here at some point and give an opportunity to answer, but I’m not interested in doing that right now. I told you this before. I guess it wasn’t good enough for you. If we don’t answer you, it isn’t personal. I’ve got to have the time to do that, and I don’t. Neither does Thomas, it seems.
Ok so hopefully now that the first comment has been made visible, the answers to your question are officially part of the conversation. You have my thanks for allowing me to respond.
With response to your five listed reasons in your article to support the statement: “This assertion about a lack of phases i the first resurrection, however, is an unwarranted assumption.”
1) The ordering of events is stated succinctly in 1 Corinthians 15:23— It only has one phase to the resurrection.
2) The text actually doesn’t require phases. The only way that phases are required by this text is if pre-tribulational rapture is axiomatically assumed. In fact, the text of this chapter of Revelation contradicts pre-trib for exactly this reason combined with the fact that there cannot be phases. That is why it is brought up as a proof text in the first place.
3) The text of Revelation 20 never actually says that they were raised at this exact point in time. Rather, as discussed in my first post, they had been raised already as we see back in Revelation 7:14. This group is simply identified as the first resurrection in Revelation 20 in order to distinguish them from the second resurrection mentioned soon after in this passage.
4) In this point you mention the resurrection of Christ (which is separated from the rest of us according to 1 Corinthians 15:23 which says, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”), which is not therefore an example of a phase of the rapture. Neither are the other examples you posit, namely “the raising of the people who came out of their graves after His resurrection as recorded in Matthew” (i.e. Matthew 27:52-53) which would imply that one phase of the rapture has already occurred, which is something that I would like you to explain further; nor “the resurrection of the two witnesses,” because this takes place at a point in time after Revelation 6 and 7, which is where we learn that the rapture itself as a whole has already taken place; and We already have a guarantee that for all who are part of this group, “on such the second death hath no power.”
For this fourth point you might have brought other examples of individuals being raised from the dead in the Bible, but that really does nothing to upset the concept laid down by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23, that there is exactly one instance that we can call the resurrection of life or the resurrection of the just. Not a multi-phased sequence of events but a single one.
As for 5), I don’t have much to add, but hearing a voice that is like a trumpet say, “Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter,” where “thee” is a second person singular, referring to John himself only, and John (ἐγενόμην, 1st person singular) being “in the spirit” (rather than a bodily resurrection of multiple people at once), cannot be said to even be circumstantially in favor of what it is pressed to be.
In your conclusion, “On the contrary, it strongly suggests that the first resurrection has phases.” This is shown not to be the case by a basic investigation of what Paul said about the resurrection of the saints in 1 Corinthians 15. And since there are no phases and only one rapture, the fact that those who were killed by the antichrist are part of it can say only one thing.
With regard to imminency of the rapture, imminence is also fully part of my position on this subject of the rapture as well. If you ask how that is, I already wrote a detailed response to a number of papers that Dr. Brandenburg linked about the subject of imminence in another post on the “Signs of the Times?” article – which explains how very well, in a post which I wrote on that article on 25 May of this year, for those who care to find that.
– Andrew
Hi Andrew. You wrote:
1.) “I should say, Thomas, that it is unfortunate that I won’t be getting any kind of an acknowledgement or apology from you about your decision to block my comment and attempt to misrepresent what I said initially.”
Since I don’t moderate comments–Dr. Brandenburg does, at least about 99% of the time–and since I never blocked any comment of yours, ever, on this blog, you are not going to get me to acknowledge or apologize for something that I didn’t do. Nor am I going to apologize for “attempt[ing] to misrepresent what [you] said” since I didn’t do that, and I am not going to lie by stating that I did it. My comments appear right away since I am one of the writers on the blog, at least if I am logged in. Others’ comments don’t.
2.) “you shouldn’t have made your initial comment to try to provoke me.” What if the purpose of my writing wasn’t “to provoke you”? Is that in the realm of possibility?
3.) “That comment proves that you did read my entire post. You picked out bits and pieces here and there from that first post, all of which avoided the main point.” What “post” are you talking about? If you have blog posts arguing for a post-Trib Rapture, I have not read them. I assumed you are talking about a discussion which you had with Dr. Brandenburg on the Rapture on one of his posts, and that when you speak of “posts” you actually mean “comments on someone else’s blog post.” But since you are repeatedly slandering me and calling me a liar, maybe you mean something else that is clear in your mind but just perhaps not as clear to those who are reading it.
4.) “We should treat the truth … with a modicum of respect … without feigning ignorance about what that other person is talking about with regard to your various provocations … “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”
Yes, we should love the truth. If you love it, Andrew, then immediately renounce your statements above that are slanderous.
By the way, slandering me is not going to convince blog post readers that the post-Trib Rapture is true. I suppose you have at least seven years before you need to worry about Christ coming for you, though, so you have plenty of time to repent, unlike we pre-Trib people, who need to live in light of the fact that Christ could return for us at any moment.
Thanks.
Hi Thomas,
No slander intended.
Pretty much everything you say misunderstands my posts. That’s perfectly okay, just anyone interested in the truth can see what is written in this discussion. It is obvious who is trying to talk about the Scriptures and who is not.
I have abundant time for the former (discussing Scripture) and not so much the latter (discussing other topics, such as contentions: Titus 3:9). For most people in this world, sadly it’s the reverse. Like it says in 1 Timothy:
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
With this in mind, any questions from anyone else who would like to discuss the above I will look out for, if they want to criticise the merit of the Biblical topic. I welcome criticism… But out of respect for Dr. Brandenburg who posted here, I will refrain from making any other mention of my beliefs on his blog whatsoever. Would not want to do anything without appropriate permission, after all.
Andrew,
Reading this comment does explain some of the problem. Did I say that you could not mention your beliefs whatsoever on this blog? Of course not, but that’s how you represented what I said. Think about it.
Thank you, sir.
Lest anyone be confused by my lack of a response to KJB1611’s retort about “seven years before needing to worry,” it is plainly open to all to see that, in my post in this thread on August 16, 2021, not too far above this post you are reading here, I wrote that, “imminence is also fully part of my position on this subject of the rapture.”
I resolutely stand behind and support the doctrine of imminence of the rapture. If you would like to see more, just see the even earlier post I already mentioned – the one from 25 May of this year, as I said before.
I am trying to be as specific as possible with this information so that people do not get confused. And this is purely for those people who want to know, so that they as readers do not get in any way confused, or get any unfortunate misunderstandings, by my lack of a response to this retort which does not recognize the facts of what I had already said.
There – hopefully I haven’t gone against what I said I would stop doing by posting any new ideas. Thank you all.
Hi Andrew, this is probably my last comment. I’m glad no slander was intended.
So were your statements like:
“I should say, Thomas, that it is unfortunate that I won’t be getting any kind of an acknowledgement or apology from you about your decision to block my comment and attempt to misrepresent what I said initially. … you shouldn’t have made your initial comment to try to provoke me. … That comment proves that you did read my entire post. You picked out bits and pieces here and there from that first post, all of which avoided the main point.”
true or false?
Thanks.
Hi KJB1611. I unwaveringly stand behind everything I said. No time for contentions, but plenty of time for Scripture.
Thanks, see you.
I see only one resurrection but yet I also see a pre-trib rapture without a resurrection.
There is only one resurrection (John 6:39-54, 11:24). The resurrection is not in the last days (plural), but it is on the last day (singular). I think the translation in the Rev 20 is unfortunate when the word “first” is used. A better translation would have been “most important” or the “primary” resurrection.
In Luke 17:37 and Matthew 24:28, Jesus states there will be dead bodies when He is revealed (apokalyptetai ἀποκαλύπτω) in Luke 17:30 and when He is coming (parousia παρουσία) in Matthew 24:30. Why not take it literally? We leave our flesh on earth when our body dies. We are taken to heaven and given a heavenly body (2 Cor 5:1-6, 1 Cor 15:40).
It makes sense that we don’t have a resurrection pre-trib. Why would there be a need to empty out heaven, return to earth, get a new body and then go back to heaven? Are the saints currently naked (without a body) in heaven? I believe 2 Cor 5:1-6 negates that notion. I would say the resurrection is for the millennium here on earth. Saints in heaven will need a new earthly body for the millennium. The resurrection only happens at the second coming (1 Thes 4:13-17).
Hello Rick.
The words for “rise” (1 Thess 4:16) and “resurrection” refer to bodies in the New Testament. The believer’s soul is immediately with the Lord at death; at the Rapture the only thing he can get back is his body. Luke 17:37 and 24:28 are the dead bodies of the lost that are killed and eaten by vultures at Christ’s second coming.
The saints in heaven have some sort of temporary body that Scripture does not give much information about, so we don’t need to know more about it.
I would encourage you to read “Landmarks of Bible Prophecy” here:
http://www.baptistpublications.org/p/I-BP.html
to get a sound view on these things.
Thanks.
Claiming that there is a rapture/catching up without a bodily resurrection is a serious error. You should reconsider.
Curious how often some contend their view or interpretation of scripture is correct, but requires scripture to be changed to fit their beliefs… Revelation 20 is very clear and specific details are given on who is resurrected and when. I think you either believe what the Bible says or you don’t. If you don’t, then the repeated reference to 1000 years can be dismissed as is done by a-millennialist or the high qualifications specifically listed of those included in the first resurrection and the timing (after the tribulation) are dismissed to support a pre-trib belief which is a relatively recent / modern doctrine that has no prior Christian support.
I can’t follow someone like Andrew’s comments because they spend far too much time assuming and criticizing and then claiming he doesn’t judge. To the point that I get caught up in frustration of his time spent on arguing about his feelings, rather than contesting the scripture with reasonable arguments. I think that’s first part of clarifying with keeping an audience. Not getting caught up in hurt feelings. And just directly responding with the debatable argument. Henceforth the reason I haven’t changed my position on pre trib based on what I gathered originally. I can’t hear through the clutter from Andrew’s rants.