Yuku free message boards

The following is a response I drafted to the post on the Rapture Ready forum. It may turn out to be an academic exercise, however, as I've not been able to successfully register there.

Comments are welcome.

***

It is quite clear that since the church is not mentioned in Matthew 24, then verse 31 cannot be a reference to the rapture of the church.

Show me the word "Trinity" in the New Testament. I'll save you some time; you won't find it. But does the absence of the actual term in the scriptures invalidate the doctrine? I can tell you that I've encountered a number of people who think it does.

This argument is a classic logical fallacy known as "the argument from silence," and it proves nothing. As someone once said, just because a picture of a horse isn't clearly labeled "Horse" doesn't mean that the animal in the photo cannot in fact be a horse. Also, I've found that an argument from silence can usually be reversed, and such is the case here. It could be argued that, since Jesus does not directly identify His "elect" as Jews in Matthew 24:31, the passage cannot be referring to Jews.

The simple fact that the church is not mentioned by name in Matthew 24:31 does not necessarily mean that it cannot be in view there. In order to prove that contention, you must find some other scripture that rules out the church as being part of the "elect," leaving you with a Jewish remnant as your only alternative. The argument also assumes that Christ told us about every last detail of His second coming in Matthew 24; clearly, he did not. There is still much we do not know about how things will be done when He comes again.

As it happens, the term "elect" occurs a number of times in the New Testament, including in passages that clearly refer to Christians in general:

Romans 8:33 - Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? [It is] God that justifieth.

I Corinthians 3:12 - Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

II Timothy 2:10 - Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Titus 1:1 - Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

I Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

The churches Paul wrote to at Rome and Corinth were, it is commonly believed, composed mainly of gentiles, but he makes no distinction in his remarks concerning the elect. His ministry, of which he wrote to Timothy, was mainly to the gentiles, and, again, there is no distinction made between Jew and Greek in the reference (indeed, Timothy's father was a Geek). To Titus, he wrote concerning the faith of God's elect; Jew and gentile alike are saved by faith. And finally, Peter remarks that the strangers he addresses are "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Are Jews alone saved in this way? Again, scholars feel that the audience addressed in I Peter was primarily composed of gentiles.

If there is an actual distinction between Jew and gentile where the elect are concerned, I've yet to see an example in the New Testament. On the contrary, the references that I have seen would seem to indicate otherwise.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the only undisputed passage describing the rapture event. Only in this passage is the Greek word harpaz (" caught up" ) used, from which the English word rapture descends. Whatever else the rapture may include in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it clearly consists of a translation of living believers.

I agree that this is the only undisputed rapture passage. Let's quote it here, along with the surrounding verses, in order to provide context:

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 - For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Given that we agree that this is the only undisputed rapture passage in scripture, it makes sense to look at it closely and ask what else we might be able infer from it. One thing stands out immediately:

The Thessalonian believers already knew that Christ would come a second time. This is clear from Paul's wording, not only in I Thessalonians 4:15, but also in 2:19 and 3:13. Paul did not feel it necessary to educate them about the fact of Christ's coming; rather, he referred to it matter-of-factly, demonstrating that his audience was already familiar with the subject.

What is most telling about this is that, when Paul begins to describe the events of the rapture, he does not inform the Thessalonians that this event will take place apart from the second coming with which they were already familiar. This is a crucial point. If the Thessalonians could expect the rapture a full seven years ahead of the second coming, why would Paul not make the distinction for them?

This becomes an even more glaring issue when you consider his comments in II Thessalonians 2:

II Thessalonians 2:1-3 - Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition...

Paul wrote II Thessalonians in order to correct the Thessalonians' misunderstandings concerning the "day of Christ." Given that they were confused on the subject, it would be reasonable to assume that Paul would have clarified it for them as best he could. I believe that he did in fact do this. But note the language that he used: he referred to "the coming [singular] of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our gathering together unto him." Surely this is proof that Paul was speaking of the rapture. What else could the Thessalonians have understood by his reference to "our gathering together unto him"? If they had a reason to question what he meant, they would have referred to his first letter to them, a letter in which he referred to Christ gathering his own by snatching them away. This is a very natural association, and I believe the great burden of proof rests with those who would dispute it, as they must produce some other "gathering" event that Paul had taught the Thessalonians about.

If the rapture and the second coming are two separate events, Paul had more than ample opportunity to state that outright in his second letter to the Thessalonians, but he did not. Instead, he spoke of the "coming" as a singular event. Note also his reference to the "day" of Christ -- "day" is also singular.

Additionally, the Greek makes it plain that the "coming" and the "gathering" are one and the same event. Tim Warner, of www.answersinrevelation.org, explains this well:

When two nouns of the same case are connected by "and" (kai), if the first noun has the article (the) and the second noun does not, the two nouns are being connected, being viewed as a unit. If both nouns have the article (the), they are being distinguished -- viewed as being distinct or contrasted...As you can see, "the coming" has the definite article (the). The second noun "gathering together" does not have the article. Therefore, both the "coming" and "gathering together" are seen as united.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/011.pdf

Thus we see Paul speaking of a "gathering" of believers at the time of one "coming" event, one "day" of Christ. When read in conjunction with the details of Matthew 24, these passages offer powerful evidence that the second coming of Christ and the rapture occur simultaneously.

Indeed, there are some similarities between the rapture and the second coming. There are also some similarities between Christ' s first advent 2,000 years ago and His second advent. But they are not the same events.

True enough. But this is something of an extreme example. The similarities between Christ's first and second comings are not nearly strong enough to cause any appreciable confusion. Obviously, the rapture debate is in another league altogether.

We know they are not the same because of the differences.

Exactly. There are some differences that obviously rule out a unity between the two events. It is the nature of the differences that help us make such determinations.

It is the differences that are important when comparing Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Enough differences exist between the two passages to clearly conclude that they must be separate events. Sproule asks,

Where does Paul mention the darkening of the sun (Matt. 24:29), the moon not giving its light (Matt. 24:29), the stars falling from the sky (Matt. 24:29), the powers of the heavens being shaken (Matt. 24:29), all the tribes of the earth mourning (Matt. 24:30), all the world seeing the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), or God sending forth angels (Matt. 24:31)?

More arguments from silence. The events that Sproule lists do not conflict with the account given in Matthew 24, they are merely absent from it. That does not mean that they cannot be associated with it, however.

Extend this reasoning to the accounts of Christ's resurrection, as given in the Gospels:

Matthew: Mary and Mary Magdalene go the tomb. They see an angel, who speaks to them. The way it is written, the account seems to suggest that the women witnessed the angel rolling the stone away from the tomb.
Mark: Mary and Mary Magdalene go to the tomb. Upon entering it, they see "a young man" who tells them that Jesus is risen.
Luke: We're told that "women" who had followed Christ from Galilee (in Chapter 23) go to the tomb and, while they are wondering where Jesus' body is, suddenly two men are standing by them in shining garments.
John: Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb (no other women are mentioned), finds Jesus gone, and tells the disciples. She later returns and sees two angels in the tomb.

Note the differences between the accounts. No two of them are exactly the same in the details they convey (and there are other differences that I've not included in the above summaries), yet Christians believe that there are reasonable explanations that harmonize them. The accounts do not contradict one another, they simply provide different details concerning the same event.

Also, why would Paul necessarily have had to delve into every detail of the second coming of Christ simply to cover the portion pertaining to the actual rapture event?

Feinberg also notes the dissimilarities between the two accounts:

Notice what happens when you examine both passages carefully. In Matthew the Son of Man comes on the clouds, while in 1 Thessalonians 4 the ascending believers are in them.

I fail to see the problem here. In both accounts, Christ descends and gathers His people. He comes in the clouds. Believers are caught up into the clouds with Him. Both passages can be harmonized quite well.

In Matthew the angels gather the elect; in 1 Thessalonians the Lord Himself (note the emphasis) gathers the believers.

This is reading more into the 1 Thessalonians passage than is actually there. I Thessalonians 4:16 says "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout..." All this is saying is that Jesus will personally appear at the rapture of His believers; it does not say that He will physically gather them himself. The angels will be acting on His behalf. He is intiating the event, but they are doing the actual work of the gathering.

And even if the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage did actually say that Christ Himself would gather His elect, that would not necessarily rule out the angels acting as His agents in that capacity. There are cases in scripture where the actions of many are sometimes attributed to the individual on whose behalf they labored. For instance, in the Old Testament we're told that Solomon built the temple, along with a house for himself and many cities throughout Israel. But do any of us really think that Solomon actually rolled his sleeves up and built these things himself? Clearly, he did not, and yet their assembly is still credited to him (see I Kings). There are numerous examples of this sort of thing in scripture. In fact, we see examples of this throughout history. Did Dwight Eisenhower really build the interstate highway system that bears his name? Did Herbert Hoover build that big dam out West?

So, unless there is actually something in either passage that clearly rules out the participation of angels acting on Christ's behalf, this argument really proves nothing. The language would have to be very specific to establish that conclusion.

Thessalonians only speaks of the voice of the archangel.

Once again, an argument from silence. Just because it is not mentioned in Matthew 24, does not mean that it cannot be part of that event. This assumes that Jesus told us about every little detail of His coming in the Olivet Discourse. There is no reason to make such an assumption, nor to necessarily rule out other events being part of His coming, unless of course such events contradict what information Christ did share with us.

In the Olivet Discourse nothing is said about a resurrection, while in the latter text it is the central point. In the two passages the differences in what will take place prior to the appearance of Christ is striking. Moreover, the order of ascent is absent from Matthew in spite of the fact that it is the central part of the epistle.

Still more arguments from silence. The gathering of the elect, as mentioned in Matthew 24, could very well include a resurrection of the righteous dead. The fact that it is not mentioned in Matthew 24 does not prove anything. In the I Thessalonians 4 account, Paul was trying to give the Thessalonian believers hope: I Thessalonians 4:13, 18: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope...Wherefore comfort one another with these words. By contast, in Matthew 24, Jesus was answering specific questions His disciples had asked Him about the end of the age: Matthew 24:3: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" The contexts under which the discussions in Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4 take place are completely different, so there is nothing strange about their focus being different, either. Jesus gave His disciples a wide-angle lense view of the future, whereas Paul focused on a more narrow aspect of that future.

That said, this question of the resurrection of the dead is an important one in the rapture debate. I believe that it strains the pre-trib view to the breaking point. Consider:

According to Revelation, there are two resurrections. The first resurrection comes at the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the Milennium (see Revelation 20). Nor can these be "spiritual" resurrections because John indicates that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished..." He indicates that the first resurrection precedes, in literal time, the second. According to what Paul taught, the "dead in Christ" will rise at the rapture of the church, so unless there are actually three resurrections of the dead (which is not taught anywhere), that first resurrection must coincide with the rapture of the church. Jesus Himself said of His believers, "And I will raise him up at the last day"(John 6:40, 44 and 54). Note that Jesus said "the last day". He doesn't refer to raising different people up at different times, but at one particular time: the last day of the age.

This is an especially thorny problem for the pre-trib view.

The contextual usage of Matthew supports the elect as a reference to Israel because of the Jewish orientation of the passage.

Well, naturally there is a Jewish orientation. After all, Jesus was a Jew, He was speaking to Jews, and at His coming He will establish His kingdom in Jerusalem. But this does not prove that the events that He spoke of in Matthew 24 can only pertain to Israel. There are some parts of the Olivet Discourse that clearly do not refer to only Jews:

Matthew 24:7 - For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

24:9 - Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.

24:14 - And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

24:29-31 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The parallel Olivet Discourse account in Mark 13 is even more clear in demonstrating that Christ's gathering of His elect will take place over the whole earth: Mark 13:27 - And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Clearly, Jesus prophesied events that will affect all of mankind. The end of the age will culminate with the establishment of His kingdom in Israel, but the Jews are not the only ones who will be affected. Don't let the distinctly Jewish references here confuse you into thinking in exclusively Jewish terms. Remember that the Olivet Discourse was given before the gospel had gone out to the gentile nations. Remember also that, in His Great Commission, Jesus told His disciples to go forth and teach all nations:

Matthew 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, [even] to the end of the age.

Note that Jesus told His disciples to teach the nations to observe all things He had commanded them. Would this not include His repeated commands to watch for His coming? If not, why not? Where do we read that Jesus ever taught His disciples that the gentile believers would be excluded from any of His commandments, or from any of the end time events? Why do none of the epistles inform gentile believers that they will be taken out of the way prior to the Great Tribulation? Surely, Paul, the "apostle to the gentiles" would not have overlooked such a major prophetic detail! Yet, we see no indications of any such thing in his writings. In fact, we see the opposite. In II Thessalonians 2:3, he warns that two events will precede the second coming of Christ: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."

Given that the term "elect" is clearly used in reference to Christians of all nationalities in the New Testament (per the examples I provided above), the greater burden of proof lies with those who would deny that the elect can include gentiles. There is nothing to that effect in Matthew 24, or, arguably, in any of the rest of the New Testament.

"Such terms as the gospel of the kingdom (24:14), the holy place (24:15), the Sabbath (24:20), and the Messiah (24:23-24) indicate that Israel as a nation is in view," [12] observes Dr. Stanley Toussaint.

Is the "gospel of the kingdom" strictly a Jewish concern? Will Christ not rule over the entire world? Did He not command His disciples to spread that gospel to the "uttermost parts of the earth"? As for the other quoted references, yes, they are Jewish in character, but should we gentiles throw out the Old Testament because of its Jewish focus? We understand the significance of these things and the role they will play in the end times. Just because there is a focus on Israel does not mean that everyone else is excluded.

The Matthew passage is a rather simple summary of all that the prophets had to say about the second facet of Israel' s final restoration. Its purpose was to make clear that the world-wide regathering predicted by the prophets will be fulfilled only after the second coming.

Dr. Renald Showers has done an excellent job collecting evidence and arguing for this view. After noting that " from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other" means that " the elect will be gathered from all over the world at Christ' s coming," Dr. Showers provides three lines of proof for his view as follows:

I don't dispute the fact that Israel will be regathered, that much is plain from the Old Testament passages that Showers quotes, among others. However, I do dispute the idea that the future gathering of the elect can only refer to Jews. The Jews were once exclusively the "people of God," but since the coming of Christ, the gentiles have been "grafted in" and are now equally heirs of the promises. Paul speaks plainly of this in Romans 11:

Romans 11:1-2 - I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew...

11:5 - Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

11:7 - What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

11:11-12 - I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles. Now if their fall [is] riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

11:17-18 - And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches.

And again in Galatians 3:26-29 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And in Colossians 3:9-12 - Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,and have put on the new [man] who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave [nor] free, but Christ [is] all and in all. Therefore, as [the] elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;

And in Ephesians 1:9-11 - Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

And in Ephesians 3:14-15 - For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named...

In Christ, "all are one." I see no division among the elect in the New Testament. Indeed, the passages I've quoted, among others, teach that the church of Christ is composed of both Jewish and gentile believers, all of whom share the hope of a common promise and will rule with Christ in a common kingdom. Consider the phrasing of one of passages Dr. Showers quoted, Isaiah 43:5-7 - Fear not: for I [am] with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

The idea that a future gathering of the Jews cannot occur simultaneously with a gathering of gentile believers is, on the one hand, another argument from silence; and, on the other hand, it ignores the plain teaching of scripture that both Jews and gentiles are one body in Christ, destined to a common inheritance in a united future kingdom.

Conclusion:

I see no evidence that the "elect" of Matthew 24 must necessarily be composed of only Jews, given other New Testament passages in which the "elect" is clearly used as a term of address to all believers in churches that were composed of Jews and gentiles alike, and given that gentile believers are counted as heirs of the kingdom alongside of believing Jews. Further, I see no evidence that indicates that the second coming of Christ is anything but one post-tribulational event, at which time He will catch away His believers, destroy His enemies, and set up his Millennial reign. The pre-trib view cannot justify separating the rapture from the second coming, at least as based on the arguments cited above, which are almost exclusively arguments from silence.