Exposing the "Secret Rapture" Theory [A Scriptural Refutation] ["That there should be no schism in the Body"] By: L. Ray Smith The return of our Creator, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to this Earth in supernal power, glory, and majesty, to vivify and transform mere mortals into the very sons of God, has got to be among the greatest events in the history of the universe! How much of its inspiration and splendor is sacrificed to theories that would have this grand event occur in stages, or in secrecy, or worse yet, on a gloomy night? I hope and pray that the revealed truth regarding Christ’s one and only second coming will lift and inspire all who meditate on its grandeur. RAPTURE DOCTRINE CAUSES DIVISION I believe there is more at stake with regards to the teaching of the rapture than a mere difference of opinion on a theological doctrine. Even among those who accept and believe in the reconciliation, justification, glorification, and salvation of all, it is a divisive doctrine. Paul instructs us:
And again:
This also includes,
We will see that the rapture theory is in direct conflict with these Scriptures. Not only is there a line drawn between the Jewish (circumcision) saints and the Gentile (uncircumcision) saints, but now it has even caused a division between individual members of the uncircumcision saints. Do the Scriptures actually teach two separate second comings of our Lord to vivify His saints, or is the rapture an unwarranted deduction based on human reasoning? It IS possible to know, one way or the other. This is not a hazy topic in the Scriptures. You will be amazed just how easy it is to understand God’s Word regarding Christ’s return to His saints--ALL OF HIS SAINTS. The mere idea of two separate and distinct comings might not be harmful in itself. However, when we examine many of the reasons given for why there should be separate resurrections at two separate comings of our Lord, then I believe the harm becomes more apparent. And the teaching that the uncircumcision resurrection, under Paul’s administration, is far superior to that of Israel’s is not substantiated by Scripture. Peter and Israel are then relegated to an inferior calling, expectation, etc. The Scriptures do not teach such a theory. It is inferred that the saints of Israel will not only have to go through the great tribulation, but possibly God’s indignation as well, while the saints of the Gentiles are supposedly raptured away long before these horrors manifest themselves on the earth. Do the Scriptures really support the idea that compared to the Gentile saints, Israel has been given an inferior calling, an inferior expectation, an inferior resurrection with inferior bodies, and a position of inferior rulership with Christ on an inferior terrestrial setting? It makes me sad to see sincere believers buy into a divisive theory of "who’s the greatest." Peter was a spiritual giant, just as Paul. There was mutual love and respect for each other, not competition, as they worked together sharing knowledge for the benefit of the saints in their care. Later we will look at some remarkable but often overlooked verses in Peter’s epistles that directly correlate with Paul’s epistles. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS A few personal thoughts before I really get into this subject. Through the years God has revealed a bit of wisdom to me, and it goes something like this: If something is false (actually, factually, and literally false), then all honest scholarship and study done on that particular subject will only further verify its falsehood. If, however, something really is true (actually, factually, and literally true), then all honest scholarship and study done on that particular subject will, likewise, only further verify its truthfulness. No amount of research will eventually prove that evolution is the explanation of our existence on this Earth. That’s because the theory is false! And this principle, I believe, applies to the study of any subject. So we have nothing to fear. I remember well the teaching of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong on the subject of the final destiny of those thrown into the lake of fire. His study went something like this: "All have sinned (scripture, scripture, scripture), but Christ came to die for sinners (scripture, scripture), but those who reject Christ’s sacrifice will be thrown into the lake of fire (scripture), from which there will be no salvation [NO scripture!]" I learned a lot from that study. In this study I, therefore, promise to give Scriptural references to back up any bold statements or assertions. I will be quoting from The Concordant Literal New Testament for most Scriptural references. HOW THIS STUDY GOT STARTED Ten years ago a friend probed me about my views on the secret rapture. I outlined in a letter to him what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding this long-debated topic. For this letter, I was virtually disfellowshipped and anathematized. He wrote a stinging letter to a Bible publisher condemning my supposed heresy. Unfortunately, I have never heard from this man again. I learned that not all brethren take kindly to those who oppose their views. Recently more and more truth seekers have requested information regarding the rapture. I didn’t realize how much interest there is in this subject. At the further coaxing of my good friend, Gordon Wallis of Pensacola, this paper is presented. It is somewhat enlarged from my notes of ten years ago. WHAT IS THE RAPTURE? Rapturists believe that I Thes. 4:13-18 describes a resurrection which includes both the living and the dead uncircumcision saints only, long before the saints of Israel are resurrected at Christ’s second coming. That there will be such a resurrection as outlined in I Thes. 4:13-18, there is no debate among believers. The debate that has raged in religious circles for over a century has to do with the "who and when" of its prophetic fulfillment. Here are the two scenarios:
One camp teaches that the rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation and; therefore, are known as pre-tribulationists. A second camp teaches that the rapture occurs in the middle of the seven-year week of Daniel are known as mid-tribulationists. And a third camp teaches that the rapture occurs at the end of the Great Tribulation. They are known as post-tribulationists. Sometimes we hear just the term "rapture," and other times we hear of the "secret rapture." The word "rapture" is not found in the Bible. Rapture is said to be taken from the Latin word rapio which means, to seize, to take by force, and is supposedly the root of the English word, "rape." The Greek word, harpazo, is translated "caught up" in the Authorized Version and "snatched away" in the Concordant Version. As "rapture" is in popular usage with reference to "caught up" and "snatched away" in I Thes. 4, we will continue to use the word in this paper. We will consider the main arguments used in favor of the rapture theory by those who use accurate translations and have a good understanding of other Scriptural truths, such as the sovereignty of God and the salvation of all. I will avoid answering all of the Christian Fundamentalist views of the rapture as their arguments in favor of a rapture add very little. ARGUMENTS FOR THE RAPTURE FOLLOWED BY SCRIPTURAL REBUTTALS I want to first quote from a study tape entitled, The presence of Christ in I Thes. 4:13-18: We cannot take the time to reply to every opposing view [to the rapture], and when even our friends are sometimes so influenced, if not convinced, by arguments that seem to be quite persuasive, and are certainly prejudicial, we can only ask them to take special care in these things before forming conclusions. I realize that the opposing views must appear to many to be substantial, and that we can easily be made to appear more than mistaken, and merely to be presenting our own unwarranted imaginings. However, those who actually understand, not the mere letter of our position, but the reasons why we teach as we do on these things are by no means of the opinion that advocates of opposing views are presenting valid or legitimately convincing arguments. I would respectfully take exception to the statement that those who oppose the rapture teaching, "are certainly prejudicial" as this expositor contends. The next statement really puzzles me: "I realize that the opposing views [those who do not believe in the rapture], must appear to many to be substantial, and that we can EASILY be made to appear MORE THAN MISTAKEN, and merely be presenting our own unwarranted imaginings." (Emphasis mine). Hopefully, we don’t believe in too many things that, "... can easily be made to appear more than mistaken ..." Let it be abundantly clear that as I go through the material and research of other expositors on this subject of the rapture, and comment on their statements and views, that it is only their teaching that I am taking exception to, and certainly not the sincere and fine people who are presenting their views. We will start our study by going through an article published by The Foundation for Biblical Research in 1976 entitled, IN DEFENSE OF THE "RAPTURE." The publication of this article by The Foundation for Biblical Research is no indication that the Foundation believes in the rapture. They just wanted to present both views. Along with this article, I will comment on statements made in defense of the rapture from the tape already mentioned: The Presence of Christ in I Thess. 4:13-18, and a 78 page booklet entitled, Consolation in Expectation. THE RAPTURE PREMISE The main premise of the rapture theory has to do with whether I Thes. 4:13-18 is an earlier and separate resurrection (rapture or snatching away) than the resurrection mentioned in Matt. 24 and also the book of Revelation. In fairness to the author, I will address every argument used in this article. We now present the arguments from the articles and the tape in bold print:
ANSWER: Do "the differences make the difference?" That is, if the events described in one account are different from the events described in another account, does that necessarily prove that we are being presented with two totally different occurrences which will happen at two different times? This is probably the biggest argument that teachers of the rapture theory use to defend their teaching. "The differences make the difference." This statement might sound reasonable on the surface, but is it absolutely true? We could also say, "It is the similarities that make them the same." In archaeology, similarity in pottery design would tend to prove the same culture as other similar pottery. In reality, neither statement conclusively proves anything. The real answer is that more information is needed to make such a determination than what is presented in these statements. Let us be careful that we are not thrown by the word "different." Many times in Scriptural accounts of something, we are presented with "additional" information, or "more" information, and not "different contradictory" information. The Scriptures do not contradict. One account might leave out a piece of information, while another account might add a piece of information, yet they do not contradict. I hope to make this abundantly clear in the following pages. Let me present a number of "different" examples to broaden our understanding of this restricted statement which allows for only one supposed conclusion. We all remember the story of the three blind men from India who were allowed to touch three different parts of an elephant. All three blind men gave totally different reports on what they felt and what they thought this animal was like. Now, did the differences that all three men reported, really prove that they were touching three entirely different animals and not just one single ELEPHANT? This is not difficult to understand. Surely we can see and understand this from the four gospels. Many events are presented "differently," from Matthew to Mark to Luke to John, but if they don't contradict, they can still be the same event. Here are some examples of different facts that do not represent different events. DIFFERENT DETAILS--SAME EVENT Concerning Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, we read in Acts 9 :7, "Now the men who are journeying with him stood dumbfounded, hearing, indeed, the sound, yet beholding no one." But we read in Acts 22:9,
In the first account Paul’s companions: Hear but don’t See In the second account Paul's companions: See but don’t Hear If we adopt the same logic used by rapturists, that things that differ in details must be different events, then we must conclude that Saul [Paul] was converted twice on two different trips to Damascus! Suppose I am planning a birthday party for my daughter, Viviane. Suppose also that we have sent out invitations outlining the time, place, and certain activities such as swimming and games. Now let's suppose one more time that as my daughter's birthday party approaches, I call her aside and privately inform her of the following secret information: "Viviane, behold I show you a secret [I don’t actually talk to my daughter like this]. We shall not all swim and play games only, but I am hiring a clown who will do magic tricks, and also a pony for all the children to ride." Now the invitations said nothing with regard to a "clown" or "a pony," did they? Does, however, this added, updated, secret information about the clown and pony somehow change the time, place, and even who's birthday (Viviane's) is being celebrated? No, of course not. Neither does one scriptural account which presents "added" or "missing" details not presented in a second account, automatically change them into two different events at two different times. Let’s look at a major event in the four Gospels, the crucifixion of our Lord. I will point out just a few seemingly different or even contradictory statements from the four Gospels in the same way rapturists point out differences in accounts of our Lord’s second coming. Here then are a few differences in the accounts:
Clearly from the reasoning point of view of a rapturist, here are presented four different events. All signs are "different," and remember we are told that, "Not withstanding the similarities ... it is the differences that make the difference." Were there two or more different crucifixions? Were their two or more different Saviors? There are many more differences in the accounts of our Lord’s crucifixion than there are differences in the accounts of His second coming. Why then does no one believe or teach that there were two or more crucifixions of our Lord, yet millions believe He will return a second time, TWICE? I have pointed out only a few of the details dealing with the crucifixion of our Lord that are presented somewhat differently, details that are excluded in some accounts and included in others. And, need I even say it? We are not dealing with four different crucifixions of our Lord, or four different Lords, for that matter. Interestingly, the very same Scripture that tells us that Christ was offered up (crucified) only once, also tells us how many times our Lord will return for those awaiting Him for salvation: "And, in as much as it is reserved to the men to be dying once, yet after this a judging, thus Christ also, being offered ONCE for the bearing of the sins of many, will be seen a second time, by those awaiting Him, apart from sin, for salvation, through faith" (Heb. 9:27-28). For years I used to watch a long series of documentaries on TV called, The Twentieth Century, hosted by Walter Cronkite. One week the program would center on the war in the Pacific, with battleships and island combat. Another week the program centered on bombing raids over the British Isles. Another week they would cover the beach landing in Normandy. Another program might cover tank battles in the northern deserts of Africa. Still another might cover the horrible starvation and fighting during Russia's infamous winters. I am sure that all would agree that despite numerous similarities in these weekly episodes, there was, however, a plethora of differences. Trench fighting in Europe, bombs over Britain, battle ships in the Pacific and tank battles in the African deserts are about as different and as far removed from each other as anything can be. The question is: Do all these "differences" prove that all these episodes were covering five different wars during five different periods of history? Absolutely not! All these episodes where covering the same war, during the same time in history, and many of these events were occurring simultaneously. All of this was World War II. When making a statement like, "But it is the differences which make the difference," to argue in favor of two distinct events, it must be proved that there are "contradictions" and not merely "differences." On the nightly news, for example, we constantly view "different" accounts of the SAME EVENT by the separate news networks. I believe the above expositor would make his point clearer by stating: "But it is the CONTRADICTIONS that make the difference." Most of us can easily agree with that statement. One more simple example before we go on. Some people know me by "Ray Smith." Others know me by "Larry R. Smith" or "Larry Smith." Still others (including the I.R.S.) know me by "Larry Ray Smith." In writing I use "L. Ray Smith." But I assure you, I am not five different people, nor will I come up in five different resurrections!
ANSWER: Let’s be sure we are clear on our phrases. "New revelation" can easily be understood to mean new information, or more information. It does not denote a new event. There is absolutely nothing in the meaning of the word "secret" that denotes a new and different event. Note very carefully what the Apostle Paul did not say in I Cor. 15. Paul did not say: "Lo! A secret to you am I telling! There is coming a resurrection of the dead." The fact of the resurrection was no secret (Jn 11:24, Acts 23:8). The primary topic of I Cor. 15 is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it portends for believers. The "resurrection" of which Paul speaks is not the secret. I have a book entitled, God’s Rules of Scripture Interpretation. The author spends pages and pages berating Christian theologians (and rightly so) for using dozens and dozens of unscriptural man-made slogans and phrases--he lists 75 of them. But he then contradicts his own teaching on page 157, by saying, "Our resurrection is found only in Paul’s epistles and twice we are told it is a secret resurrection." "Secret resurrection" is a man-made slogan that is nowhere found in the Scriptures. Nowhere is this resurrection of the saints called a "secret resurrection." RESURRECTION WAS NEVER A SECRET So what was the "secret" that Paul wants us to now know? The secret is new information regarding the resurrection that was not known or ever taught before. I Cor. 15:51-53 lists the following new information with reference to an old subject:
The resurrection of Christ that Paul spoke of was the same resurrection of Christ of which Peter spoke (Acts 2:31). Here are two major proofs to the Corinthians that Christ was raised from the dead:
and,
Peter and Paul, circumcision and uncircumcision, witnesses to the same Christ and the same resurrection. Paul further states,
Who is the "our" he is speaking of? The other eye witnesses--Peter and the Twelve (Ver.5). As they were both heralding the same resurrected Christ, they were also heralding the same hope in the same resurrection that will save us all.
Now the clincher. Who were these "who are put to repose in Christ"? Were they only those of Paul’s ministry? Those of the uncircumcision? Gentile believers only? Friends and relatives of these Corinthians only? Or does "who are put to repose in Christ" also include members of the Jewish saints in Jerusalem under Peter and the twelve? Some of those who Paul says were put to repose were Jewish saints from Jerusalem under Peter and the Twelve. Notice:
There is no question that "... those also, who are put to repose in Christ ..." in verse 18 includes "... some were put to repose ..." of the "five hundred brethren" in verse 6 of this same chapter. It is the one resurrection of Christ that is their hope and it is the one resurrection of all the Saints, of which Paul teaches, that will be their realization of that hope. The very first aspect of this secret is the fact that
That was never taught before. But what of those who were put to repose?
This also is part of the secret Paul is revealing. Some of those who were put to repose in verse 6 (Jewish Saints in Jerusalem), will be in this resurrection with Paul! If some of those put to repose of the 500 witnesses will be resurrected with Paul, then of necessity, all of the Jewish saints will be resurrected with Paul and all the saints (I Thes. 3:13). Hence, they are roused in one resurrection, all at the same time--at the last trump. THE DAY OF THE LORD
ANSWER: Did they really "know all about the day of the Lord?" Apparently not. Else why does Paul have to correct them regarding the events of "the day of the Lord?" What Paul did say, was
That is all that is written concerning their knowledge of the events of this day. And well they should have known that much, seeing that it was taught many years earlier by Christ Himself (Matt. 24:43, Luke 12:39, John 10:3, Rev. 16:15). Evidence shows that the four gospel accounts were circulated before Thessalonians was written. If the Thessalonians "knew all about the day of the Lord," they would not have had to be warned so sternly by their Apostle. Notice: "Now we are asking you, brethren, for the sake of the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to Him, that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be alarmed, either through spirit, or through word, or through an epistle as through us, as that the day of the Lord is present. No one should be deluding you by any method, for, should not the apostasy be coming first and the man of lawlessness be unveiled, the son of destruction" (II Thes. 2:1-4). The Thessalonians did not comprehend at all the events leading up to the day of the Lord. They may have thought that they were already in the day of the Lord. So Paul informs them of the necessary prophetic events yet to be fulfilled before that day can arrive, and comforts them with:
By the time Paul wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians, it was most apparent, that they did not "know all about the day of the Lord" and other such events. In his second epistle Paul makes it clear that the man of sin must first come and Christ will then be conquering him at His presence. And he informed the Thessalonians that their long ordeal with afflictions and persecution would come to an end when they would receive "rest" from these things "AT the unveiling of our Lord Jesus Christ."
ANSWER: A careful study of these verses will show that Paul has only one day in mind, the day of the Lord (which comes as a thief). Actually, the undeniable and irrefutable proof that the mention of "the day" in verse 2 and 4 is only one day, the day of the Lord, and which does comes as a thief, is contained in the two verses themselves. If indeed, Paul wanted us to understand these as two different days, then the phrase "that the day [a different day?--the secret rapture?] may be overtaking you as a thief" is absolutely meaningless and out of place in this context. I am really at a loss to understand how the use of the word "day" twice in so many sentences makes them two different days. If these sentences were found in any literature other than the Bible, there would be no mistaking them to mean two different days. It is stated that the differences in the use of the word "day" twice, is easy to see: "One comes as a thief in the night, and the other does not overtake as a thief." But if these are two different days, then this comparison is totally incoherent. It would be like comparing apples with oranges. It could be coherently argued (though not Scripturally) if the mention of "the day" twice in these two verses were presented as being two different days for the following reasons:
But they cannot use those two statements, which would prove them to be different days, because the Scriptures do not make any such comparison as the above two statements. So they are forced to concoct the following incoherent contrast: "One day comes as a thief in the night, and the other day does not overtake as a thief."
We must not try to compare apples with oranges--not on the farm, and certainly not in the Scriptures. The phrase "comes as a thief" but "does not overtake as a thief" must of necessity refer to the same day. It is silly to try and use these two phrases as proof of two different days. The two phrases prove just the opposite--they prove absolutely that they are the SAME day! Can anyone believe that what Paul really meant to say, was something like this: "... the day of the Lord is as a thief in the night--thus is it coming ... Now you brethren, are not in darkness, that the day (that is, a different day, the day on which Christ comes to resurrect you, which does not come as a thief in the night, but is a different day from the ‘day of the Lord,’ which as you know, does come as a thief in the night, however, even if the rapture were to come as a thief in the night) may be overtaking you as a thief in the night" Such a statement would be a little outlandish. The sentence structure and grammar of Paul’s statements are clear to understand. The phrase "of the Lord" is understood in the second mention of "the day." Just as millions of times in literature, the second mention of something is shortened (or many times even abbreviated for brevity’s sake) from all the adjectives and embellishments that the first mention of a particular thing may have. This is quite easy to understand. Look at the description of the very day we are discussing--the day that Christ returns in anger and vengeance--the "day of the Lord": This day is described as: "the unveiling of the Lord ... from heaven ... with powerful messengers ... in flaming fire ... dealing out vengeance ... coming to be glorified ... to be marveled at in all" (II Thes. 1:7-10). Now when Paul wants to refer back to this day, "(seeing that our testimony to you was believed)," verse 10, he does not again go through several lines of material describing the day he wants to make reference to, he merely states, "in THAT DAY" (Verse 10). "In that day" is not referring to a different day than the day of Christ’s unveiling mentioned above. And so, likewise, we have an example of that very thing in these verses:
Why complicate something so simple? Here then is absolute Scriptural proof that the mention of "the day" in verse 2 and "the day" in verse 4, both come as a thief, and hence are the same day--the day of the Lord: Whether the Thessalonians are in darkness or not in darkness is not the determining factor as to whether or not the second mention of the day in verse 4, comes as a thief or does not come as a thief. The element of "a thief" is already clearly stated in both verses. Let’s read them:
We can’t remove "the thief" from verse 4 just because its removal would help support a secret rapture theory. Why does this day not overtake the Thessalonians as a thief? Does this Scripture tell us that the reason it doesn’t overtake them is because it doesn’t even come as a thief in the first place? Where do these Scriptures say or even suggest such a thing? This Scripture plainly tells us why this day doesn’t overtaken the Thessalonians as a thief. The reason this day (which does come as a thief--verse 4), but does not overtake them as a thief, is because, "... you brethren are not in DARKNESS ..." However, if the Thessalonians were in darkness, then the day of verse 4 would overtake them as a thief! It could not overtake them or anyone else if it didn’t come as a thief in the first place! There it is. It is not whether or not the Thessalonians are in darkness or not that determines whether the day comes as a thief or not. No, it does come as a thief.. The point Paul is making is that it does not overtake them as a thief, and the reason it doesn’t is plainly given: "... you brethren, are NOT in darkness ..." That, dear reader, is the only reason that this day, the same day as verse 2, which also comes as a thief, does not overtake the Thessalonians--they are NOT in darkness. So therefore, this day (the day of verse 4, the so called "rapture day" of the gentile saints), WILL overtake anyone who IS in darkness, and the reason given is that it too, like the day in verse 2, DOES COME AS A THIEF! There is absolutely no way around the simple truth of this Scripture. Now how many different prophetic days are mentioned a dozen times in the Scriptures, and are said to come "as a thief in the night?" Only one--"the day of the Lord"! Thus a Scripture misused to try and support a secret rapture theory, in reality, proves just the opposite. Now notice one thing more. Although the day of the Lord does not "overtake" them as (a thief as it would if they were "in darkness"), they are, nonetheless, still present at the time of the day of the Lord and have NOT been raptured away! Whoever the saints are at the time of the "day of the Lord," they are still present on earth and have not as yet been raptured OR resurrected! Although the day of the Lord does not "overtake the saints as a thief," it nonetheless DOES COME AS A THIEF, and NO ONE is resurrected before it comes!
ANSWER: A careful examination of the Scriptures will show that "the day of the Lord" does not include the tribulation or the great tribulation. "The day of the Lord" and "the tribulation" are different terms, and the Scriptures do separate them. They are not overlapping events as we shall clearly see. Here then, is proof that the "day of the Lord" does not include the "great tribulation" (as translated in the Authorized Version), or the "great affliction" (as translated in the Concordant Version). This time of "great tribulation" or "great affliction" (Jacob’s trouble--Jer. 30:7), is so great, that we are told that such an event will occur only once in the history of the world (Mat 24:21). Therefore, it is impossible that there can be two such events--only one can be of the greatest magnitude ever. Is it therefore possible that this event is a part of the "great day of the Lord" as suggested by rapture defenders? No, it is not. Here’s the proof: PROOF FOR WHEN THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME Let us be clear, that the "day of the Lord" is the time period of Christ’s return to this earth to punish Babylon the Great and to pour out His righteous indignation on her (and on those nations who follow and worship her) for her evil crimes of inhumanity and blasphemy. Here is the order of events (Mat. 24:29-30). It’s as simple as one, two, three:
The "day of the Lord," the day that the Lord comes, clearly is "after" the great affliction, and "after" the heavenly signs. The book of Joel gives us a second confirmation: "Alas! Alas! Alas for the day! For near is the DAY OF THE LORD. And as devastation from Him Who-Suffices is it coming" (Joel 1:15).
So we have this event neatly book-ended with references to the "great affliction" and the "heavenly signs." Matt. 24:29 clearly tells us that "immediately AFTER" the great affliction or tribulation of those days, the signs in the sun, moon and stars occur, followed by the return of Christ--the day of the Lord. And Joel 2:31 clearly tells us that the signs in the heavens occur "BEFORE" the coming of the day of the Lord. As to the chronology of these grand events, there can be no honest dispute--the day of the Lord does not include the great tribulation, but comes after the great tribulation, and after the heavenly signs. DAY OF THE LORD COMES AS A THIEF
ANSWER: We have already shown in Scripture that the great tribulation ends at our Lord’s advent, it does not begin. Nor is the tribulation ushered in, as a thief, three and one half years earlier or seven years earlier. It is our Lord’s "coming" that is as a thief, not "tribulation." "Gloominess" and "darkness" during the time of the day of the Lord is not the main aspect of the figure of a thief or even a minor aspect of this figure of a thief. The Bible tells us plainly what the figure represents. It is representative of "when He comes" -- "His coming"! Nothing else. "Darkness and gloom" is not being compared with "a thief in the night," at all. The world is in darkness and gloom, but the actual "coming" of our Lord is in no way analogous to "gloom and darkness." How can anyone even suggest that the Lord’s coming as a thief is comparable to night, darkness, or gloom, when the Scriptures plainly tell us that,
Nothing is as bright as lightning--not even the sun. No one will know when our Lord comes, but when He appears, everyone on earth will know!
"Power," "Glory," and "LIGHTNING" have no fellowship with "darkness," "evil" and "gloom"! Furthermore, the fact that Christ is coming "as" "a thief in the night" has absolutely nothing to do with either an actual thief or actual night time. And, likewise, it has nothing to do with negativism. This is figurative language. This is not to be taken literally. Let us be clear, that Jesus Christ is not coming as a thief, to steal! And He is not coming at night so that no one can see Him coming (the aspect of His coming as "lightning" should dispel any such idea). If we would let the Scriptures speak to us and explain things to us, it would become abundantly clear that there is only one aspect of Christ’s coming that is applicable to "a thief in the night." Actually, the phrase "in the night" is not even necessary to our understanding of this idiom. In fact, most Scripture references even drop the aspect of "in the night" and refer only to "a thief."
From all these Scriptures it is clear that "in the night" is not an important aspect of this idiom. It’s just that most thieves do come at night, but it is not necessary that a thief come at night in order to be perfectly suited to the one aspect of Christ’s coming that is likened to the coming of a thief, or surely six separate Scriptures would not have left "in the night" out of this idiom. Here is a major proof that coming as a thief has absolutely nothing to do with darkness or gloominess, or for sure, the phrase "in the night" would never be left out of this idiom. We might ask whether it is even possible for someone coming from Heaven (assuming that heaven is above earth’s atmosphere?) to this Earth, to do so "at night?" After all, when approaching the Earth from outer space, it is always daylight over half the earth! In Jerusalem, however, our Lord’s coming might be, "... at evening, or midnight, or cock crowing, or morning ..." (Mark 13:35). I almost hesitate to comment on the argument that if the figure of a thief represents the unexpectedness of Christ's coming, then those watching would not be surprised when He came. But if that is so, then we conclude that those who are watching will not be surprised by His arrival, yet Matt. 24:43-44 suggests that even if they are ready, such an hour as you think not the Son of Man comes. (Emphasis mine). Is the writer suggesting that this Scripture contradicts the idea that Christ's coming is as a thief? That if some should be "watching," then they will not be surprised when Christ comes? Such an idea is not logical or sound reasoning. Let me attempt to state this idea clearly. Can we agree on the fact that Jesus did not lie when He said: "Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only" (Matt. 24:36)? Okay then, no one knows when Christ will return. So, even if one is watching, he still will not know when He will return! The very fact that someone would be "watching" is proof positive that he DOESN’T known when the return occurs. Those "not watching" probably don't even believe Christ is going to return. They will be surprised when it happens. Those who "are watching" believe the Christ is going to return, but neither do they know when He will return. The figure of the thief represents the unexpectedness of His coming--nothing else. If one knows the exact hour that a guest is to arrive at his home, he doesn't need to sit by the window watching for days or weeks. If he knows the exact hour, he could, in fact, set his alarm clock and go to sleep. Here's another point from this figure of a thief. It's a minor point, but nevertheless, a point. Matt. 24 not only states that no one will know when our Lord will return, but it even further suggests that it will be at a time considered the most unlikely. Notice it: "... for in an hour which you are not supposing, the Son of Mankind is coming" (Verse 44). Consider also, that if Christ wanted to give a figure of speech that represents the day of the Lord (rather than His actual "appearing"), then "as a thief" would be totally inappropriate. The Day of the Lord represents: Vengeance, Wrath, Indignation, Fire, Gloominess, Darkness, Clouds and Murkiness, Mourning, Devastation, War, Pain, Suffering, and Death--wholesale DEATH. One might choose to represent such evil, A Monster, Satan, a Devil, A Wild Beast, or some such thing, but not a "thief.". Our Lord doesn’t even suggest that it is "an armed robber or thief"--just "a thief." A "thief" is not in the least representative of the horrors of worldwide pain, suffering, fear, and slaughter. A "thief" is about as analogous to or representative of these unprecedented horrors and carnage of most of the human race as a teddy bear or a rubber ducky would be. And that’s why God does use Monsters, Wild Beasts, demons, and Satan himself, as the personification of the greatest evils in history, not "a thief"! If Christ’s actual return and appearing in great glory is not a thing of darkness, gloominess, and negativism, how then does Christ return to this Earth "as a thief," or "as a thief in the night?" We don’t need to use human reasoning or speculation, many Scriptures tell us exactly how His return is "as a thief." Christ returns to this Earth is as a thief in that no one will know when He will return. The time of His return, is unexpected. And that is the only way in which Christ comes as "a thief." Not one of these Scriptures (which fully and simply explain the figure of a thief), mentions one word about the "ominousness" of the dark and gloomy day as the reason for the figure of a thief. Here are the Scriptures:
There we have eight separate Scriptural explanations as to why and how Christ returns as a thief, and not one of these Scriptures connects a thief with the ominousness of gloominess, darkness, and the like. Christ does not return as a thief because it is gloomy out. He does not return as a thief because He will come in the middle of the night. And He does not come as a thief because that He, Himself, is a thief. No, none of these. He comes as a thief, unexpectedly. That’s it. We don’t know when. All eight verses pinpoint the one aspect of unexpectedness!
ANSWER: The subject is the Presence of the Lord at the resurrection of the saints in I Thessalonians. We are being told that their expectation is described by the words "light" and "day." And that this is "By way of contrast ..." But contrasted to what? Well, the sentence before speaks of the gloominess of the day of the Lord. But isn’t that the time when the saints of Israel have their expectation? Yes it is. If our expectation is described by the words "light" and "day" as contrasted with Israel’s expectation, would not their expectation then have to be "dark" and of the "night"? I don’t see any other possibility for this statement. For if "our expectation is light and day, and it is "contrasted" with someone else’s expectation, then of necessity, their expectation must be the opposite, and be "dark" and of the "night." But if true, where is the Scripture? Do the Scriptures speak of the saints of Israel as being "of the dark and of the night"? Let us see if the Scriptures speak of the saints of Israel (or their expectation), as being of the "dark" and of the "night," as "contrasted" with the Gentile Thessalonians who are of the "light" and of the "day."
There doesn’t appear to be a "contrast," but rather perfect harmony. ALL saints are of the light and of the day!
ANSWER: In the second to the last chapter of this article the author concedes the following:
So then maybe it really does occur after the tribulation period just like the Scripture says, ("Now immediately AFTER the affliction [tribulation] of those days ... they shall see the Son of Mankind COMING ..." Matt. 24:29-31). Now, if both groups of saints are resurrected after the tribulation, how is it possible that the rapture "... comes under different conditions"? Also, if the rapture occurs after and not prior to the tribulation, why would Christ have to come twice. Why would there be two resurrections? I thought the whole rapture theory rested on the notion that, (1) God did not appoint them to indignation or wrath [never mind for the moment that God did appoint them to tribulation], (2) They have a different calling in Heaven, therefore all these tribulations and earthly things are of no interest or consequence to them. (3) They have a "pre-expectation" which, therefore, must occur long before Israel’s expectation, etc. Yet the writer states, "These evidences of more than one coming of the Lord DO NOT prove that the rapture occurs PRIOR to the tribulation period." Doesn’t this statement concede much of their argument in favor of rapture resurrection "long before that of Israel"? Especially this would seem so in the light of the staunch dogmatism with which this theory is taught and defended. Regardless, if both groups of saints pass through the tribulations without being vivified, then both groups find themselves at the next great event, the coming of the Lord. So how is it that Christ is coming for the Thessalonians "under different conditions"? If both groups of saints come through the tribulation together without being vivified, then whatever the "conditions" are at that time in the world, it will be the same for both of them. And surely, God can protect anyone at anytime under any circumstances without resurrecting him to immortality.
ANSWER: It is stated that the King James Version puts this rescue in the past tense. Well maybe they shouldn’t have. The American Standard Version puts it in the aorist [imperfect] tense, "... even Jesus, who delivereth us ..." J. B. Rotherham has it, "... Jesus: Who is to rescue us out of the anger that is coming ..." And the Revised Standard Version also uses the aorist tense, "... Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come ..." If this promise is "past tense," then it does not include anyone in the future for whom this rapture is supposedly promised. For just such reason, I believe, Mr. Knoch discovered a great key to the Scriptures in his understanding of the aorist tense of Greek verbs. Should John 3:16 be, "For God so loved [past tense] the world ..." or "For God thus loves (aorist--imperfect) the world ..."? It is the latter. There is a failure here to discriminate between the Scriptural use of words. Notice in the second sentence the word "wrath." Then in the third sentence he uses the word "indignation." In the fifth sentence he uses the word "hurricane." And in the last sentence he uses the word "troubles." This can only cause confusion. The prophetic event known as "the indignation of almighty God" is a totally different prophetic event from "the great tribulation," also known as "Jacob’s trouble." At this point in our discussion, it will be helpful to define some words that are often interchanged as if they are virtually one and the same. It is important that we understand the meanings of important words that are wrongly applied by those who teach the rapture:
Although there is somewhat of an overlap in defining these words, we can still get a clear picture as to how these words are used in the Scriptures. Notice that "affliction" and "tribulation" are nearly synonymous. Notice also, that "wrath" and "indignation" are nearly synonymous. "Affliction" can be defined as "tribulation," and "tribulation" can be defined as "affliction." Likewise, "wrath" can be defined as "indignation," and "indignation" can be defined as "wrath." But, the first two words, "affliction and tribulation" are not synonymous with the second two words, "wrath and indignation." There is a giant difference in their usage, and especially when used in a prophetic setting. I hope I haven’t lost anyone. Reread this a few times and you’ll get it. It is when we fail to keep these prophetic events where they belong that we end up with ideas such that Christ is coming back a second time twice. The Scripture says,
It nowhere says that God has not appointed us to trials, troubles, pain, suffering, heartache, disappointment, disease, death, or hurricanes! In fact, Paul himself, tells us that we enter the Kingdom of God by going through a whole lot of these things (Acts 14:22). I personally, presently, am going through trials, troubles, pain, suffering, heartache, disappointment, disease, and two very near death experiences in the past few years, not to mention hurricane Andrew. But, nonetheless, it is a great comfort to me to know that God has not appointed me to His indignation. Believers are chastised by a wise Father out of LOVE, the nations will be punished by an angry God out of VENGEANCE. Can we not see the difference? (Actually God’s "anger and vengeance" is also out of love, but the nations will certainly not initially perceive it as such). When we look at all the ways that "indignation" is used in the Greek Scriptures, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that "indignation" is used of God to punish the wicked and stubborn. Indignation is not a direct form of chastisement. No matter how many, how much, how often, how severe your sufferings and tribulations may be, if you love God you can be absolutely guaranteed that not one iota of it is coming upon you in the form of God’s indignation. Here then is how, on whom, and when God pours out His indignation:
There are the Greek Scriptures on indignation. Notice that it always comes from God. It is poured out in vengeance upon the unrepentant, the stubborn, the unjust and irreverent, those who worship the beast, etc. Never is God’s indignation poured out on His SAINTS! Not the Gentile saints and not the Jewish saints. The saints of Israel have not "been appointed to indignation", they are not "of the night," they will not "be overtaken as a thief," they are a part of "all the saints," I Thes. 2:14 and 3:13. It is stated that those called in Paul’s message of grace will not go through the Great Tribulation period, because:
and
But look at our definitions of words again. God is promising to rescue us out of coming "indignation," not "tribulation." God did not appoint us to "indignation," but He did appoint us to "tribulation." These terms are not synonymous. Straightening out the understanding of the Thessalonians (who decidedly did not know all about the day of the Lord) was the main purpose for Paul writing these two letters in the first place! Paul does not chastise the Thessallonians for believing wrong doctrine, or committing terrible sins, or lacking in faith. Not at all. But rather,
So what was their problem? Why these two epistles from Paul? Here’s what was happening in Thessalonica:
The word "afflicted or affliction" is used eight times in these few verses. "Suffering" is used three times. "Endurance" is used twice. Then we have the words, "struggle," "outraged," "necessity," and "persecutions." So were the Thessalonians "not appointed to these things?" Were they "rescued out of these things?" No. No they weren’t. Now, is there one word in either I or II Thessalonians that states or indicates that anyone suffered or will suffer from "The wrath or indignation of Almighty God"? NO, there isn’t! But they (the Thessalonians) thought maybe they were suffering the wrath or indignation of God, because they were suffering, and as they did not know all about the day of the Lord, they were fearful that they were already living through the prophesied "Day of the Lord." Paul had already told them in his first letter, that, "No one is to be swayed by these AFFLICTIONS, for you yourselves are aware that we are located [appointed] for this" (I Thes. 3:4). Just as many today who teach the rapture, these Thessalonians had failed to discriminate between the "wrath or indignation of God" and the "trials, suffering, and afflictions" that they were going through. The "wrath and indignation" of God, we are "not appointed to," and, therefore, will be "rescued out of it." However, "tribulation, suffering, and afflictions" we are appointed to (I Thes. 3:4, "Through many afflictions [much tribulation] must we be entering into the kingdom of God" Acts 14:22, and from most of which we will NOT be rescued. It was, in fact, (in a relative sense only), these very afflictions and tribulations that made the Thessalonians worthy to enter the Kingdom of God. Notice it:
For anyone who has suffered very little from, disease, heartbreak, financial distress, persecution, pain and suffering, and the like, it is difficult for such a one to put himself in the shoes of the Thessalonians. Their affliction and suffering was great. Although they were very faithful to God, there was much they did not know. They didn’t have the advantage of the New Testament Greek Scriptures as we do today, with the exception of the four gospel accounts which were already in circulation according to some experts. I doubt that many Gentiles could read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. They had "Paul" the great teacher, and his marvelous display of miracles and works, but little else to teach them. So Paul filled them with assurance of Christ’s return to this Earth, the resurrection of the dead, and their entry into God’s Kingdom. They believed, because of their severe suffering and persecution, that they were already in that time. Notice how Paul inspired them in his first epistle;
These six Scriptures ALL deal with the second coming, the Day of the Lord, the Unveiling of Jesus Christ. We have emphasized the great persecution and tribulation that the Thessalonians were going through in Paul’s first letter to them. And to encourage them, Paul mentions the "Presence of the Lord" in all five chapters of I Thessalonians. Through the years they became labored, distressed, and ill at ease. So in II Thes. the first chapter (as soon as Paul gives a brief introduction), Paul again praises them for "bearing" these relentless hardships and afflictions (Verses 4-5), and then he immediately comforts and consoles them by letting them know that they will receive ease [rest] from these sufferings and afflictions. But when? If ever there was to be such a thing as a rapture, look when it would have to take place. Next verse: "... with US [Paul and ALL the saints, I Thes. 3:13], at the UNVEILING [the ‘unveiling’ is ‘the day of the Lord’, I Cor. 1:7-8], of the Lord Jesus from heaven [Mat. 24:30, Rev. 19:11, I Thes. 4:16] with His powerful messengers [Matt. 24:31, I Thes. 4:16, Rev. 11:15, Rev. 19:14] in flaming fire [Rev. 19:12], dealing out vengeance to those who are not acquainted with God and those who are not obeying the evangel of our Lord Jesus Christ--who shall incur the justice of eonian extermination from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His strength [Rev. 11:18, 19:15] whenever He may be coming to be glorified in His saints [including the saints in the ecclesias of Judea whom the Thessalonians imitated, I Thes. 2:14, also, I Thes. 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, Mat. 24:31, I Cor. 15:22,51-53, Rev. 11:18, I Pet. 1:4-7, 13, 2:1, 5:4, II Pet. 3: 9-13] and to be marveled at in all who believe [that’s All saints everywhere] (seeing that our testimony to you was believed) in that DAY" (II Thes. 1:7-10). Verse 7 is absolute proof that Paul and the Thessalonians are to receive their ease and rest from persecution and affliction "at" the unveiling of Jesus Christ. So it can’t be a "secret" rapture because ALL the saints will be in it. The second witness as to when the uncircumcision gentile saints (specifically, the Corinthians in Greece) were expecting Christ to return for them:
Notice that all this takes place "at the UNVEILING," "in the DAY OF THE LORD." The very fact that Paul says the Corinthians will be "AWAITING" the unveiling of our Lord and the day of the Lord for these things to happen is proof positive, that these things had not already occurred three and one-half or seven years earlier. Likewise, Paul would not have told them that they would be confirmed "unimpeachable in the day of our Lord" if they were already confirmed unimpeachable seven years earlier. These Scriptures are very clear as to when these things happen--at the unveiling and in the day of the Lord! Remember that Paul told the Thessalonians that they would
Paul told Timothy the same thing. Paul told Timothy to pursue, endure, and contend, as the Thessalonians also did,
The only advent in which Jesus is called "King of kings and Lord of lords" is when He return to earth to do battle in the Day of the Lord,
And when did Peter teach that we would receive rest and glory for enduring our testing?
So here are numerous witnesses as to the time of the delivery from this world’s ills for both the Jews and the Gentiles. And none of them occurs at any so called "secret rapture." In all honesty, let’s ask ourselves a question: If the two Scriptural references in II Thes. 1 and I Cor. 1 had used the word "rapture" or "snatched away" instead of the word "unveiling," would not rapturists use these Scriptures as proof for their secret rapture?" Well then, I firmly believe that we have absolute Scriptural proof that these things do not take place at any "secret rapture," seeing as God’s Word plainly states, "AT the UNVEILING" and "in the DAY OF THE LORD"! These things happen "at" the unveiling of Jesus Christ in the day of the Lord, not years "before." What does the little word "at" mean? Webster’s, at, prep., in; on; near; by. It does not mean, "before," "long before," "seven years before," "three and one-half years before" nor does it mean "after." Outside of the realm of religion, we seldom have problems understanding simple words like "at." Try this: "At what time did the train arrive? It arrived at seven hours before it arrived." If language can be twisted like that, maybe there is a secret rapture. Just after this revelation, Paul instructs us that,
There are things in the Scriptures that I don’t believe anyone alive fully understands. However, the teaching regarding when the resurrection of the saints takes place, is not difficult. In chapter 15 Paul tells us that this resurrection takes place at the last trump. Here he tells us that it will be at the "unveiling," at the "consummation" of this age, when "the day of the Lord" is ushered in. It is in perfect harmony with Matt. 24 and the book of Revelation. Our Lord does not come a second time TWICE to gather "ALL His saints" (I Thes. 3:13). Rapturists can "reduce" from the Scriptures, they can "deduce" from the Scriptures, but they can’t "produce" from the Scriptures a single statement that says there are two resurrection, at two different times, for two different sets of saints, and that our Lord is going to accomplish this feat by returning a second time, TWICE! ALL SAINTS ARE RESCUED FROM THE COMING INDIGNATION
ANSWER: Did Paul really believe that God would rescue him personally from a soon-coming indignation"? That seems very doubtful in the light of Scripture. Paul knew that he would suffer many things for the name of Jesus Christ in his ministry, from the very beginning:
And it was no secret to Paul that he would give his life for Christ’s name sake when his ministry came to an end:
Let’s think about this statement that Paul’s rescue or deliverance had already occurred "nineteen hundred years ago." As the Concordant Version uses the word "Rescuer," let’s stay with that word. On the tape: The presence of Christ in I Thes. 4:16, a big issue is made over whether to be rescued "out of" something really means that one must first be "in" something. In other words, how could the Thessalonians be rescued "out" of indignation which was yet thousands of years into the future? Their answer goes like this:
Maybe someone has "compared it to the removal of someone from the pathway of an approaching storm," but they shouldn’t have, because it is an invalid comparison. Why didn’t they compare it to the removal of someone from the pathway of an approaching bullet? Why a storm. I’ll tell you why. Because an approaching storm allows for a little more time. In other words, we see the storm coming, but it isn’t here yet, so we remove someone from the path it will take so that when it does arrive, the potential victim is safe and out of danger. So why then is this an invalid comparison? Because it is proposed that the saints will be removed seven years in advance of the coming indignation! And in the case of the Thessalonians, it is said that they were already supposedly rescued nineteen hundred years ago. I have never heard of people being "rescued" from the pathway of a storm that will not arrive for another seven years! That cannot be classified as a "rescue!" There is a TV series hosted by William Shatner, called, "RESCUE 911." The excitement in the show is its many rescues that come very near to disaster or death. I can absolutely guarantee that the show would be a total flop if they showed emergency agencies rescuing people from the pathway of oncoming storms that will not arrive for another SEVEN YEARS! Or maybe rescuing people from crashing planes that haven’t even taken off the ground as yet. Or maybe haven’t even as yet been designed or built. What does it mean to be "rescued?Greek-English Keyword Concordance, rescue, r[h]u’omai = HAUL, drag away from danger. We do not "drag" someone away from a danger that does not yet exist! We might "remove" them. We might "relocate" them. We might "transfer" them There are any number of ways to describe taking someone out of a yet future harmful situation. However, "RESCUE" is not one of them! I strongly contend that this one little innocent word "rescue" is a major problem for those teaching the secret rapture. God does not "drag" His saints into a secret rapture in order to avoid His indignation that will not be arriving until seven years into the future!
ANSWER: No, we have not been removed from the pathway of approaching troubles, nor will we be removed from such. Trials, troubles, suffering, persecution, pain, and disappointment are the very lot of all who will live godly in Christ Jesus.
ANSWER: "The coming affliction" and "that time of gloom and darkness" are NOT the same events in prophecy! Notice what the Scriptures say regarding these two different events:
Is there really some giant, practical difference between:
This is a mute argument. Either way God will keep all safe from the impending evils.
ANSWER: I don’t quite understand this argument. Why is it significant that the 144,000 are not sealed until just before the afflictions begin if Paul was not actually rescued thousands of years ago, but, "that is, he was assured of never having to undergo that period." (Emphasis mine). Obviously this is so, seeing that the great day of the Lord and God’s indignation was not poured out back in Paul’s day. Paul was not actually "rescued" two thousand years ago. The Thessalonians were not actually rescued two thousand years ago. In fact, no one was actually rescued two thousand years ago. But, the promise was given two thousand years ago, that God did not appoint the saints to indignation, and when that day of the Lord does finally arrive, God will rescue his saints (no matter what color, size, race, or sex) from His wrath poured out on sinning humanity. So how is it "significant" that they aren’t sealed until just before the day of the Lord and the coming indignation? There is no need to seal or rescue them any earlier, and no one else is going to be rescued any earlier. Whenever anyone becomes a believer, and reads and believes the Scriptures, and reads in I Thes. 1:10 and 5:9 that Christ is our Rescuer and God has not appointed us to indignation, then that believer will have that promise just as any other saint that has ever read and believed this passage! Where does it say that this promise and this Scripture is not for believing Jews? Where does it say or insinuate such a thing? Then why teach it? Then why two separate comings of our Lord? Why two resurrections? What is it about the believing Jewish saints of Israel that would disqualifies them from being in this so-called secret rapture? It is this drawing of racial lines that makes this teaching not only unscriptural, but also divisive. ISRAEL’S RESURRECTION DAY IS UNKNOWN
ANSWER: Let’s read Dan. 12:13:
I will likewise say, that it may be "assumed" that there is a resurrection in Dan. 12:13, but, to use the writer’s own words, maybe "such a thing should NOT be assumed" seeing that, "there is NO MENTION of a resurrection" in this verse either! Let’s read this verse very carefully before jumping to the conclusion that the 1335th day is the resurrection day for Israel. Notice verse 12: "Happy is he who will tarry ..." Tarry means, "to wear away the time" Keyword Concordance p. 298. Of the ten times "tarry" is used in the Greek Scriptures, not once does it refer or have any reference to, dead people. So what this means is, that the "happy" person in this verse has already been resurrected to life before the end of the 1335 days, and that is why he is "wearing away the time [waiting] to the 1335 days." Not only does this "happy" person have to tarry or wait to the 1335 days, but he also has to "attain"--Greek: katantao = DOWN-INSTEAD, arrive at, or attain. Example: "... for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, unto the end that we should all attain to the unity of the faith ..." (Eph. 4:13). Okay, so one must "tarry" and "attain" to what? "... to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days!" (Dan.12:12). It doesn’t say to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-"fifth" day as our opponents on this subject contend--the day that Daniel is reported to be resurrected on. No, not at all. After this resurrection, there is a "waiting" and "attaining" period. How long? It doesn’t say, but we get a clue by the phrase "... and you shall rest and stand up for your lot at the end of days. "Forty-five days after this (1335 days) seems to be the time set for the resurrection of Daniel ..." P. 65. There is no mention of a resurrection in this verse! We need to be careful about setting dates for Christ’s return. We are told that when the man of sin takes his position in the Holy Place of the Temple, (an event that will obviously not take place in secret), it will be exactly 1335 days to the day for the resurrection of the saints of Israel. We are also told, that the 1260th day is the actual day of Christ’s return. How then is it that Christ told his disciples numerous times that no man (not even rapturists) knows the time of His return (remember that thing about coming unexpectedly, like "a thief")? Israel was granted "lots" in the promised land. When God resurrects Israel, they will once again return to their designated lots, and Daniel will have his lot. One obvious reason for this wait between resurrection and actual possession of their lots has to do with the condition of the land itself. We read of the vultures feasting on dead men’s carcasses. The filth and stench will be terrible. It may take weeks or months to clean up the land suitable for possession and habitation before anyone actually "stands in his lot." Next let’s examine the statement that, There is no mention of a resurrection in Zechariah 14:1-5, Matthew 24:29-31 or Revelation 14:1-5, thought it is often assumed that it is there. ANSWER: It is true that the word "resurrection" does not appear in these three Scriptures, but that does not necessarily rule out the fact that there is a resurrection taking place. For our proof, we will now go to the "rapture book" itself, Thessalonians.
Does "all His saints" include "all" His saints, or just the living saints? The answer is on next page, "For, if we are believing that Jesus died and rose, thus also, those who are put to repose [dead], will God, through Jesus, lead forth TOGETHER with Him" (I Thes. 4:14. Now follow this very carefully, ALL the saints, living and dead, are gathered together, at His presence, to ever be with Him. Does this gathering of all the saints only happen in I Thes. 4:16? No it doesn’t. Let’s next read Zechariah 14:1-5:
|