Matthew 24:29‑30 says: >*“Immediately after the tribulation of those days… then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and 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.”* Pre‑tribulationists believe Jesus will rapture the church before the Great Tribulation. I’d like to understand how pre‑tribulation interpreters reconcile this verse with their view of Christ’s return because it seems Jesus returns after the Great Tribulation and not before.

Some say that Matt 24:40-41 is referring to a Rapture with the righteous Church removed first. But Jesus said very plainly that in the end time after the tribulations the angels will come and gather the Tares from the wheat first. So if you are taken first you are a Tare and will be cast into Hell to be burned. Tares are church goers who are not saved but of the evil one. Only then are the righteous people dealt with. I can't see how people could still interpret Matthew 24:40-41 with the Rapture idea? What am I missing? How do they interpret these passages in a consistent manner? >Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matthew 24:40-41) >As therefore the tares are gather and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the End of this World...Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:40-43)

Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: either the perspicuity of Scripture is false or the pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

In light of passages like *1 Corinthians 15:52-53* which states that only **after** the “dead in Christ are raised” then those who are alive are “changed… putting on immortality” and the teaching on the judgement of the sheep and goats in *Matthew 25:31-46* which takes place at the inauguration of the Millennium, when the non-believers will “depart into eternal punishment” and believers into eternal life… **WHO will remain in perishable bodies (capable of reproducing) to repopulate the earth, thus producing the generations up to the final rebellion?** Whether you hold to a pre- mid- or post-tribulation rapture, there still stands the passage in *1 Corinthians 15* I cited above; you can’t allow for a parousia without first experiencing the resurrection or the putting on of immortality. This has been troubling me for a while, but I’ve concocted a few ways to marry these passages in light of post-trib eschatology… firstly; that “all” of Israel are converted just **after** the “harpazo” to fulfill *Zechariah 12:10* thus they won’t put on immortality. OR (THEORY) The multitude of victims of child sacrifice/abortion/infanticide are resurrected into an *edenic* state and those of us who have put on immortality are tasked with ruling them alongside Jesus with the rod of iron. Because they weren’t in-dwelt with the Spirit but (generally agreed upon) saved by grace nonetheless. Bonus: What do YOU suspect will happen when these fetuses/babies/children are bodily resurrected? Finally, what if there are pregnant believers that enter the millennial kingdom? And what of the children who haven’t reached the “age of accountability?” Thanks in advance!

I have created the following end times timeline of the 7 years tribulation: **In year 1:** - Antichrist makes covenant with many for 7 years (Daniel 9:27); **From year 1 to year 3.5:** - Beginning of sorrows (wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes etc.); **In year 3.5:** - Abomination of desolation; - The Antichrist becomes the ruler of the world; - Christians go to the wilderness; **From year 3.5 to year 7:** - The Great Tribulation; - The false prophet makes the world population to receive the mark of the beast; - The false prophet creates the image of the beast; - The false prophet makes the world population to worship the beast; - War with the saints; **In year 7:** - Rapture; Are there any End Times theorists see it playing out similar to this?

I am working on writing a blog post about the rapture and am curious about the different theories of the rapture. Could someone explain to me the Mid-Tribulation Rapture theory and show some supporting verses for it, as given by those who support this theory? I previously asked about the Pre-Tribulation theory [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57792/rapture-according-to-pre-trib-theory) .

90% of Christians believe in pre-tribulation rapture. Nevertheless in Matthew 24 verses 15 to 31 we read: *when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place .......... let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains ......... for then shall be **great tribulation** such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be .......... immediately **after the tribulation** of those days ......... shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven .......... and he shall send his angels .......... and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other...........* Is Matthew 24 verses 15 to 31 a proof of post-tribulation rapture because if the rapture happens before **the great tribulation** who will the angels gather *from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other* **after the great tribulation**?

**CLARIFICATION:** For those who believe there will be an event in the "end times" in which believers will be "taken up" to meet Jesus "in the clouds", and that there is yet to be a "Great Tribulation", I am curious which scriptures (primarily) are used to support the view that the rapture will happen prior to the tribulation, as opposed to after the tribulation. **REASON FOR THE QUESTION:** I am studying Matthew 24 in preparation for a sermon next Sunday, and came across the following passages (from the NASB): > "...the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them...' (from v.3-4) > > "'...they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you... At that time many will fall away...'" (from v.9-10) > > "'For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.'" (v.21) > > "'But immediately after the tribulation of those days... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds... And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.'" (from v.29-31) Based on these passages, it sounds like the disciples asked what signs would indicate the "end of the age", and in response, Jesus described a "great tribulation" after which He would "come on the clouds" and "gather His elect". I am assuming that both "camps" (Pre-Trib. and Post-Trib.) would have an interpretation of this passage, but it got me thinking... if there was a "Rapture" before the great tribulation, why wouldn't Jesus just say something like "when you notice people disappearing, you'll know the end is here!" In other words, Jesus is answering their question, but seems to be glossing over the most obvious "sign of the end of the age", which happens before everything else (in the Pre-Trib view.) I haven't studied the Pre-Trib. vs. Post-Trib. debate extensively, and was wondering if someone could summarize the arguments from scripture in favor of the "Pre-Trib" view. (I am aware that any passage *can* be interpreted any number of ways, but I am specifically looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine.) Thanks!

LOOKING FOR AN OVERVIEW FROM ALL CHRISTIAN POSITIONS. THANK YOU. If the *Day of the Lord* differs from the *Day of Jesus Christ* based on contextual distinctions (judgment vs. redemption), wouldn’t the same logic lend itself to suggest that titles like the *Son of Man*, *Son of God*, and *Lamb of God* refer to entirely different entities or personas? The pre-tribulational rapture perspective argues that terms like the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* represent distinct events. From my understanding, this argument typically stems from the context of the passages within which the terms are used—the former is used in contexts of divine judgment, while the latter is associated with believers' hope and sanctification. **Day of the Lord** (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3) >”For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” **Day of Jesus Christ** (Philippians 1:6) >”Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” Could these differing emphases simply reflect varied aspects of the same event, tailored to the audience or message being conveyed? Consider how the New Testament employs diverse titles for Jesus. **Son of Man emphasizes the humanity of Jesus** (Matthew 8:20) >” And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” **Son of God highlights His divinity and unique relationship to the Father** (Matthew 16:16) >”Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” **Lamb of God conveys His role as the sacrificial savior** (John 1:29) >” The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” **King of Kings displays His sovereign authority over all of creation** (Revelation 17:4) >” These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings...” This very strategy is used throughout the Old Testament as well when God is given various names which highlight various aspects of his character and deeds he has done: **Jehovah-Jireh highlights God’s provisions when he provides a ram for Abraham** (Genesis 22:14) >” And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen” **Jehovah-Rapha displays God’s ability to heal** (Exodus 15:26) >”… for I am the LORD that healeth thee.” **Jehovah-Tsidkenu emphasizes God’s righteousness** (Jeremiah 23:6) >”In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.“ And these lists could go on and on, but the point remains. It would seem senseless to suggest that these titles are referring to separate entities in the Old or New Testament, as the Bible is clear on there being one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Similarly, Scripture never seems to clearly indicate a distinction between these events, rather, we often see instances where both the redemption aspect (rapture) is directly tied to the destruction aspect (Christ’s judgment and wrath). Throughout Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians we see a connection of these two events - 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to carry over into Chapter 5 without evidence of a *new* event being discussed. Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 1 & 2 seem to do the same, connecting relief being granted in the moment Christ also destroys the wicked. This also occurs in Matthew 24 where Jesus seems to tie destruction of the wicked in the same event as gathering his elect. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* could very likely describe distinct facets of a singular event? The *Day of the Lord* might emphasize the cosmic judgment and upheaval accompanying Christ’s return, while the *Day of Jesus Christ* focuses on the fulfillment of believers’ salvation and reward. To argue otherwise risks imposing divisions not explicitly delineated in Scripture, much as insisting on separate entities for Jesus’ various titles would.

From my understanding, the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine suggests that separate terms are used for the rapture event and Christ's complete arrival at the end of the tribulation. Specifically, proponents assert that *the Day of the Lord* refers to Christ's final arrival, while a term like *the Day of Christ* pertains to the rapture event. I believe John MacArthur and others have supported this perspective, stating that *the Day of Christ* refers specifically to the rapture. I am personally very persuaded of the opposite—that these various terms actually refer to the same event, each emphasizing different aspects of it. Regardless of the broader debate, focusing specifically on *the Day of Christ*: if this term indeed refers to the rapture event, how does one reconcile the belief that the rapture occurs prior to the onset of the great tribulation in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3? 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 says: >"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..." I find it difficult to see how one could justify the rapture occurring prior to the tribulation when considering passages like this. If *the Day of Christ* is distinct from *the Day of the Lord*, wouldn't this passage at least suggest a mid-tribulational view of the rapture, given that Paul explicitly states *the day of Christ* will not occur until a falling away happens and the man of sin is revealed? I suspect that those with a pre-tribulational view might point to the word *"revealed"* (ἀποκαλυφθῇ) as the key to their understanding. Perhaps the argument is that the man of sin being *"revealed"* is not the same event as him taking power or standing in the Holy Place? Do they interpret this as merely his coming to existence on earth, rather than his active rebellion or defilement of the temple? By no means am I am an expert in Biblical Greek, but I find this to be an unlikely interpretation of the term/phrase. Perhaps the argument instead interprets this passage as suggesting that the rapture occurs after the falling away but before the man of sin is revealed? In other words, they might propose that Paul is stating *the Day of Christ* occurs after the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin then follows. However, there seems to be no grammatical or contextual support for this view that, as I see it. Anyway, thank you in advance for any input.

I have been reading up on various eschatological views and I have noticed an argument that I have not been able to find a detail about. It seems to be a common assertion by the Catholic and Orthodox that the Rapture, as portrayed by the Left Behind series, is non biblical because it calls for three "comings" of Jesus. [catholic.org](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture) puts it eloquently enough, > The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture. Does the bible specifically limit the number of times that Jesus comes to earth? Why would it be a problem for Jesus to come again before the "Second Coming"? Where does this "only two comings" requirement come from?

There are a lot of differing opinions on when the rapture will take place (pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation). From my own attempts to research the topic and look at Scripture from outside my presuppositions, I have found good arguments for all sides of the issue. What did the early church actually believe about the "rapture"? Note: This question is (obviously) not a duplicate of the question "What view of eschatology did the early church believe? " — I wrote that question and, seeing that I needed to be more specific about the different aspects of eschatology, I wrote this question that specifically dealt with the "rapture." The other question, by contrast, mentions nothing about the "rapture" in any of the answers.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:14 Paul tells us that the people that He refers to as "sleeping" will rise from the dead just like Jesus. > 1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Jesus both died and was resurrected on earth. Meaning that Paul was speaking here about the earthly resurrection that He referred to in Romans 6:13. Meaning that the "sleepers" are backslidden believers. > Rm 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. I am curious to find out how rapturists deal with this.

Luke 17:32, 33 >**32** Remember Lot's wife. **33** Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. Do these two verses contradict with the idea of being taken out seven years before Jesus' second coming?

One of my close friends has recently taken to believing in a pre-trib rapture, and out of respect for her, I've tried my best to understand why she believes it. I've seen the texts which the pre-tribulationists use to support their views (mainly 1 Thess. 4:13-19, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, John 14:1-3, Matt 24, Rev. 3:10, and many others) and heard their arguments but I'm still perplexed by how the logic works. I can see how, if you already had the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, you might think some or all of those verses support that interpretation. However, what I can't see is how you anyone came up with the idea in the first place. Clearly, someone did, since there has not been a continuous tradition of pre-tribulationists and the evidence that anyone at all held that view before the 19th century is pretty scanty. So, what I want to understand is how did the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture originate (or re-originate, if the pre-tribbers are correct and it was the original doctrine)? How does one get to the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture without already having it in your mind? To be clear about what I'm asking (I don't think it's a duplicate of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7239/what-scripture-is-used-to-support-a-pre-tribulation-rapture) : I want to know how one would use Scripture to build up the picture of the pre-tribulational rapture, i.e. that Jesus will return in a secret way to gather the church off the earth and we all go into heaven prior to the seven-year Tribulation period, during which many (all?) ethnic Jews will become believers, after which Jesus will return in glory and destroy the anti-Christ and rescue the faithful Jewish believers. If you read the Bible with no pre-conceived notions of the eschaton, what kind of reasoning would lead you to believe that it teaches this timeline?

I'm not looking for Biblical support of the doctrine, but for a post-Biblical teaching that clearly articulated a pre-tribulation rapture, as opposed to a post-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture, or clear documentation that an early Christian group specifically held pre-tribulation views.

From this link :
> It seems inconsistent for God to promise believers that they will not > suffer wrath and then leave them on the earth to suffer through the > wrath of the tribulation. > > If the Bible is interpreted literally and consistently, the > pre-tribulational position is the most biblically-based > interpretation. And this link :
> At that moment, the world will have no born-again believers anywhere. ---------- Does it mean there will be no more of God's elect? I mean something like this :
Before the creation, God has 100 elects, humans who will be in heaven.
Not one of the 100 elects will taste the tribulation.
> Matthew 24:31
And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet > call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end > of heaven to the other 80 elects already died before the Rapture. The rest, 20 elects are raptured.
No more the elect, no more believer to the rest of the future after the Rapture, before the Millennial Kingdom.

Revelation 3:10 states: > 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. This doesn't seem to confirm any rapture before the mark of the beast. The verse doesn't seem to imply that "keeping from trial" means "keeping from trial by rapturing", for example, christians or their "culture" could be extinct over time at the point of "christianity" to be forgotten so the verse would hold with no problem.

> 2 Thess 2:1-3: Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, **not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed**, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. **For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction**. Paul appears to be saying that "that day" (the day of the Lord's coming and our being gathered to him) will not come unless two conditions (the rebellion and the revelation of the lawless one) come first. According to pre-tribulational rapture theory the rapture of the Church takes place well in advance of both of these conditions. If he is writing to reassure his pre-trib rapture followers that the Second Coming of Christ (Day of the Lord) hasn't happened yet, why has he listed two conditions that they will not be around to witness? Why not say, for instance, "The rapture comes first and you're still here aren't you?"