Imminence Part 2

Q. I find it illogical reasoning. Pre-tribulation believers say that the word Church is not mentioned after Revelations chapter 3, which means the Church won’t be on earth (raptured out). Jesus was giving messages to the churches, so naturally, the word church was no longer mentioned subsequently. But what about the words “the saints” and “God’s people”?

Pre-tribulation supporters say the rapture is secret. How could it be secret when suddenly millions or billions of people disappear and accidents everywhere (driverless cars), missing family members, and children orphaned?

They say Rev. 3:10 means to take out of (raptured), but the original text means to protect. If Rev. 3:10 means raptured out, then no need for verses 11 and 12 as they won’t be on earth!

The problem may arise from a mindset that prioritizes ease and comfort. When someone with that mentality reads a verse such as:

1 Thes 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come,

the interpretation would focus on being delivered from trouble altogether.

However, historically, that had not been God’s way. For example, He kept Noah’s family safe through the Flood. He did not whisk them away before the Flood came. When God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, He delivered them through the Red Sea. God did not “rapture” them to safety. Throughout Israel’s history, He kept the nation as He promised the patriarchs but allowed them to suffer the consequences of their sins so that they would learn to follow Him. The same is true throughout church history. Why would He change His method to favor the last generation of Christians when most people’s love has grown cold (Mt 24:12)? So they won’t face trouble and learn? Hardly!

To justify their assertion, pre-tribulation proponents use circumstantial “evidence.” For instance,

• Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

They claimed that “keep you from the hour of testing” means “keep you from the time of trouble,” i.e., take or rapture you away to avoid that period altogether. You pointed out that the New Living Translation is:

• NLT Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world.

But what is God’s method of protection? Remember the Ten Plagues?

• Ex 9:6 So the Lord did this thing on the next day, and all the livestock of Egypt died; but of the livestock of the sons of Israel, not one died.
• Ex 9:26 Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were, there was no hail.
• Ex 10:23 They did not see one another, nor did anyone rise from his place for three days, but all the sons of Israel had light in their dwellings.
• Ex 12:23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.

God’s way has always been to protect through the time of testing, not avoiding it. So, the argument based on the wording “hour” or “time” is not supported by actual examples.

What about the absence of the word “church” after Rev 3? Does that mean the Church has been raptured and is no longer on earth? Some even suggest that Rev 4:1’s “come up here” refers to the rapture:

• Rev 4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.”

This misinterprets Scripture as the phrase applies strictly to John, not the Church.

The above is an example of an “argument from silence,” a weak form of evidence. Borrowing from forensic investigations, direct physical, written, or verbal evidence is needed to “prove” a case. Circumstantial evidence can support an argument but is insufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Your observations of “the saints” and “God’s people” are direct evidence in referencing the Church. But of course, pre-tribulation supporters claim that these apply only to the Jews or Christians saved after the rapture. If the mind is closed, you can find all kinds of excuses to justify yourself, which is sad!

Imminence

Q. People who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture claim that the Bible says the rapture will happen at any time, and we won’t know when. So, this is possible only if the rapture is pre-tribulation. If the rapture is post-tribulation, we would know it is after the 7-year tribulation. What is your view?

A. First, let us start with what the Bible says about rapture, imminent, and imminence, not what people say. While the concept of rapture or translation of Christians to meet the Lord is well-known, the word “rapture” itself does not appear in most English translations in use today. [It appeared once in DBY (Darby Translation, Songs 2:3) and four times in BBE (Bible in Basic English, Ps 28:7, 45:15, 51:8, and Prov 5:19). However, in these cases it is used in the sense of being rapturous, ecstatic, or extreme excitement. This is NOT “a seizing by violence; a hurrying along; rapidity with violence,” which is Webster’s definition and what most Christians understand rapture to mean.]

The adjective “imminent” appeared once in the NASB (New American Standard Bible), AMP (Amplified Bible), and LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) – 2 Pet 1:14, and three times in the NET (New English Translation) – Ps 27:3, Prov 10:14, and Hos 9:7. The noun “imminence” does not appear in contemporary English versions at all. The Greek word for imminent in 2 Pet 1:14 is transliterated tachinos, which means “swift, quick” of events soon to come or impending. Tachinos appeared twice in the Greek NT:

• 2 Pet 1:14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
• 2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

In 2 Pet 1:14, Peter was talking about his impending death, while in 2 Pet 2:1, he was referring to punishment that will quickly fall upon the false prophets and teachers. In neither case was he referring to the rapture of the Church.

So, what do pre-tribulation proponents base their claim that “the rapture is imminent” on? They based it on deductions from their interpretation of certain verses, not on direct biblical statements.

Second, let’s review the two primary passages that describe the rapture:

• 1 Thes 4:16-17 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
• 1 Co 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Note the following:

• The rapture – the resurrection of the dead in Christ followed by those alive being caught up together to meet the Lord – will happen when the Lord descends from heaven. It will be a public event with loud sounds, not a secret rapture. Even pre-tribulation supporters agree that the Lord’s return will be after the tribulation and not before it.
• It will take place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet of God. That is, it will happen very quickly. The text did not say at any moment or imminent, as pre-tribulation proponents claimed.

Then where does the idea of imminence come from? Let me quote a few verses cited by the pre-tribulation school to support their argument:

• Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
• Mt 24: 42, 44 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. For this reason, you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
• Mt 25:13 13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
• See also the parallel passage Mk 13:32-37

Their reasoning is since no one knows, not even the Son, the only conclusion is that it could happen at any moment or at any time. If something else needed to happen before the rapture, for example, the great tribulation, then that would be a sign, and we would know. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But is that the only solution?

When the day or the hour of an event is not known, at any moment is one possible solution. Another possibility is that it is in the future, for which timing is indefinite, with or without signs. For example, when a child is born, the day or the hour of his (or her) death is unknown. Under normal circumstances, the current life expectancy for Canada in 2024 is 83 years. If he (she) has a fatal disease (with signs) or an accident (without signs), the life span would be cut short. The death may be imminent, but not necessarily. The timing of the death is unknown but need not be imminent. Similarly, the rapture’s timing is unknown but need not be imminent. This is simply logic.

Third, any Bible passage’s interpretation must be consistent with the context. What does the context of the quoted passages say?

• The immediate context of Mt 24:36 is the parable of the Fig Tree (Mt 24:32-41), which follows Christ’s glorious return in v 29-30, “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” It refers to Christ’s Second Coming after the tribulation, not a pre-tribulation rapture.
• Mt 24:42’s context follows the parable of the Fig Tree, with the Lord warning His disciples to be ready for His coming. The subject has not changed. It is still after the tribulation.
• Mt 25:13’s context is the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13). In Mt 25, the Lord taught two parables, the Ten Virgins followed by the parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30), before describing the Final Judgment (Mt 25:31-46). The entire chapter teaches about Judgment after the tribulation. It is not talking about a pre-tribulation rapture.

You can search other verses cited by pre-tribulation proponents to see whether they support their premise. But my bottom line is: how can we legitimately apply Bible passages describing post-tribulation events to justify a pre-tribulation and imminent rapture? We can’t! Period.

Fourth, one well-known author explained “imminence” as follows:

• Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before an event can happen, then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency.

Unfortunately, his definition is what destroys their understanding of imminency.

Let me cite two examples in which the biblical characters involved did not expect an imminent rapture would derail what they thought would happen:

• Jn 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!” The Lord was prophesying how Peter would die. Remember, according to pre-tribulation supporters, He did not know the day and hour of the rapture. Did He assume an imminent rapture, which could occur before Peter’s death, to nullify His prophecy? I don’t think so.
• What about Paul? Was he an advocate of an imminent rapture by which God would deliver him out of his trials and tribulations? No. When he bid farewell to the Ephesian elders, he said in Acts 20:22-23, 25 And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. Paul did not know what would happen to him except that imprisonment and persecution awaited him in Jerusalem. He will not see the elders from Ephesus again. He also knew he would testify in Rome because the Lord told him. Acts 23:11 But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.”  This must occur before the rapture because the Lord said so, which destroys imminency according to the pre-tribulation school’s definition.

I can continue to provide a rebuttal for other points raised, but this is a short article, and I have written enough to show you my train of thought. If there are issues you want me to address, please specify them, and I would be glad to discuss them when I have time.

Multiple Raptures? (Part 1 of 4)

Q. I identify the two prophets in Rev 11:3, 10 with Moses and Elijah as a result of their powers (Rev 11:6). Not only had their souls (or souls and bodies if the stolen dead body of Moses mentioned in Jude 1:9 was taken away by God for this purpose) already come down in the Transfiguration, but will come again in the end times in body and soul as the event in Rev 11 appears to happen on earth (because there will be death in Rev 11:9 and call from heaven to go up there later in Rev 11:12).

Some say Christ had already demonstrated His multiple ascensions and descents. He had descended to the visible sky of the earth to call Paul to service (Acts 9:3-5). If this is not a strong enough argument on descent from heaven as it was only a vision, then His own words that the women should not touch Him after His resurrection until He had ascended to meet the Father (Jn 20:17), but later His letting them hold on to His feet (Mt 28:9) should hint that He had ascended to meet the Father and descended again to appear on earth.

So my question is whether the so-called Second Coming is a single event or a series of events, and whether, based on the above study on Moses, Elijah, and Lord Jesus Christ, we can have multi-raptures, i.e. pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation raptures can be all-embracing, i.e. they co-exist and are not at odds. And the dead believers may be raptured before the 7-year tribulation, descended in the middle of the tribulation, then raptured again, descended again at the end of the tribulation, to be raptured again?

1. First, let us define our terms. Let me quote from Wikipedia:

The “Rapture” is an eschatological position held by some Christians, particularly those of American evangelicalism, consisting of an end-time event when all dead Christian believers will be resurrected and, joined with Christians who are still alive, together will rise “in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” (1 Thes 4:16b-17a)

Based on this generally accepted definition, the Rapture relates to all Christians, dead or alive, being caught up to meet the Lord. The examples you cited concerning Moses, Elijah, and the Lord Himself are all individuals ascending to heaven or descending to earth, not all Christians (the Church). So, technically, scholars would not classify them as raptures.

Second, before determining whether there are multiple raptures, we need to discern a broader subject of whether the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ are separate incidents or one and the same event. The common schools or views of the Rapture can be divided into two broad categories:

1. Those who treat them as separate incidents, with a “secret” rapture sometime before Christ’s public Second Coming. These include the:
   • Pre-tribulation view, with the Rapture taking place at the beginning of a seven-year Great Tribulation;
   • Mid-tribulation view, with the Rapture happening at the mid-point or three-and-a-half years into the Great Tribulation and
   • Pre-wrath views, with the Rapture before the seven bowls of God’s wrath judgments.

All three views have Christ’s Second Coming as a separate event at the end of the Great Tribulation, defined differently in each school.

2. Post-tribulation view that sees the Rapture and the Second Coming as one and the same event happening simultaneously.

Which category is correct? Proponents of the separate incidents views focus on their supposed differences. Let’s review the evidence.

(To be continued)

Nephilim and the Book of Enoch

Q. There are lots of talk on YouTube about the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim. How credible are these talks?

Concerning Nephilim, there are just too many of them to comment individually. Some are produced by authors I know, and I’m aware of their theological position, even though I may not agree with them fully. Others are unknown and I did not spend hours to review them. For example, Chuck Missler of “Koinonia House” believes in pre-tribulation rapture while I hold the post-tribulation view, but his handling of Gen 6 on the Nephilim is sound. The first hour of this talk is about UFOs and aliens, but the second half he went into a fine exegesis to present the “angel view” as opposed to the “Sethite view” of the sons of God:

See also: http://raykliu.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/imprisoned-spirits/

With regard to the Book of Enoch, it is not in the biblical canon. Contrary to what the History Channel and liberal scholars say about it being banned from the Bible, it was never in the Bible in the first place. The reason is it did not pass the tests of canonicity. The book is dated between 300-100 BC, and could not have been written by Enoch himself, but someone who assumed his name to lend authority to his work. While it may contain truth, the rest is false historically or doctrinally. Much of what’s on YouTube is sensational for marketing purposes. I don’t see many evangelical authors there. Gary Stearman of “Prophecy in the News” is one, but he too is a pre-tribulationist. I would watch them as interesting background, but always check back to the Bible.

http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html