Misread Rapture? (Christian critics of 'Left Behind' series)

Thanks for explaining this interpretation to me, for I had never heard of it before now. I've studied Revelation for thirty years now and thought I had heard everything about it.

I first read Revelation thirty two years ago at 13 and saw only one period then. I still do today.

I agree with the literal hermaneutic and so I'll try to apply it here. But I am not a pre-trib rapture believer.

First, what is the context? Revelation is a roughly chronological prophecy, and by this chapter Jesus has returned and the forces of Satan have been defeated. Satan himself is cast into prison for a thousand years, in the first three verses. The first resurrection has already taken place, at Jesus' return in Chapter 11.

1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Now let's look at verse 4.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

From the time frame of the prophecy of Revelation, this is "current" with Jesus' return to the earth and the first resurrection. Who is reigning? Those who had just been resurrected, Christian martyrs who had been faithful to God despite the depradations of the Beast power, both in the end time and throughout history.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

"This is the first resurrection" refers back to verse 4, those Christians who had been resurrected at Jesus return. See 1 Corinthians 15 for more detail about the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This verse is like a commentary from the point of view of the first century AD, from John's point of view. From this perspective, the resurrection and the millenium are still future, hence the future tense. Verse 4 is from a future perspective, after the resurrection, hence "they lived" and "reigned" for a thousand years.

To completely rule out any possibility of multiple thousand year periods, look at the next verse:

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

After verses 4 and 6, the Bible calls it "THE thousands years"--a single time period. Just to make sure, I looked in my 26 translations of the Bible and my Greek interlinear. The Greek phrase is "ta chilia eta" "the thousand years". All 26 translations render it that way.

"First, what is the context? Revelation is a roughly chronological prophecy."

This is an assumption. There are many similarities in 19 and 20 which indicate these are passages which speak of the same events, albeit from a different perspective. Both, for example, speak of a great battle in which all the enemy were destroyed. (If all the enemy were destroyed in 19, why are there more to destroy in 20?) We also see that both battles borrow the prophetic language of the battles from the same Ezekiel passage. In other words, it could be cronological as you say, but there are indications in which it is not.

"The first resurrection has already taken place, at Jesus' return in Chapter 11."

This is key! What is the definition of the first resurrection? What light do other passages in scripture shed on this resurrection.?

First, look to Revelation itself. It is good you have a Greek interlinear. It is also good you have quoted from the KJV and the NIV. I suggest you compare all these versions to one another. You will find that the NIV simply blows the translation (I actually prefer the NIV to the KJV, but I do acknowledge it really blew this translation).

Rev 20: 4

NIV 4. And I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

KJV 4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them.

Greek 4. And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them;

The Greek word for "judgement" is krima and does not mean "the authority to judge". It means a "verdict" was given them.

Now let's consider who these "souls" are.

Rev 20: 4

NIV "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands."

KJV "and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands"

Greek "and the souls of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of God, and those who did not do homage to the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead, and upon their hand" (emphasis mine)

Notice the Greek refers not to one but two groups of people: Those beheaded and those who did not give homage to the beast. Is this important? Yes, in context we see that the first group identified had most certainly been killed, the second group does not necessarily share that feature. So far we have two groups of people identified by John on which a verdict was given to them -one dead and one perhaps yet alive.

Rev 20: 4

NIV "And they came to live and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

KJV "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Greek "and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years" (emphasis mine)

Although the NIV says these souls "came to life and reigned", neither the KJV or the Greek are rendered this way. The KJV and the Greek simply say, "they lived and reigned".

Rev 20: 5

NIV "5. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection."

KJV "5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Greek 5. but the rest of the dead not lived again till may have been completed the thousand years. This is the resurrection first." (emphasis mine)

Is the first resurrection tied to the two groups which "lived and reigned" or to the "rest of the dead" not living again until the thousand years are completed. I agree with you in that this applies to the former. But what is this first resurrection? Obviously resurrection means the dead rising to life, but this poses some problems with the testimony of the rest of scripture.

First, how can living people be resurrected? You are probably thinking that I am assuming the second group is yet alive, I will demonstrate later why this is not a mere assumption.

Second, if this is the bodily resurrection of the believers, how do we reconcile that with John 6? John 6 claims that the resurrection is at "the last day". If we see "the thousand years" as a future event and if we view it as an earthly reign, then either John 6 is wrong or "the last day" is 1000 years long -hardly literal.

John 6: 40 (NIV) "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

John 6: 44 (NIV) "No one can come to me unless the Father who set me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

John 6: 54 (NIV) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

According to the "literal hermeneutic" we must take "the last day" to be a simple day -24 hours in length. It says "the last day". It does not say "the last day before the millenium". It says simply, "the last day".

Since these two facts seemingly contradict if their literal meaning is taken, then, according to the "literal hermeneutic" one might not be literal. In other words, either "the last day" is a figurative phrase with a spiritual meaning, or "the first resurrection" is a figurative phrase with a spiritual meaning. The question now is, which one. I will demonstrate which later.

Rev 20: 6

NIV "6. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

KJV "6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priest of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

Greek "6. Blessed and holy he who has part in the resurrection first: over these the death second has no authority; but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

Notice I have highlighted the article "a" in each of the above translations. You had earlier mentioned:

"After verses 4 and 6, the Bible calls it "THE thousands years"--a single time period. Just to make sure, I looked in my 26 translations of the Bible and my Greek interlinear. The Greek phrase is "ta chilia eta" "the thousand years". All 26 translations render it that way."

This is wrong. I just showed you the NIV, the KJV, and a Greek interlinear which does not render this as "the thousand years". In fact, according to both Greek interlinears I have, the article "the" is not in verse 6.

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker 1981, Grand Rapids) renders this phrase only as "chilioi(5507) etos(2094)". There is no "ta".

Greek English New Testament (Christianity Today 1965, Washington D.C.) renders this phrase as "[ta] chilioi etos". The [ta] being in brackets is not in the orginal text.

Furthermore, the characteristics of the relationship of the saints with the millenium mentioned in verse 4 is far different that the relation ship the saints have with the millenium in verse 6. In verse 4 "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.", yet in verse 6 we see a difference: "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years". Verse 4 makes no mention of "priests", only that the saints "lived and reigned". I think this is significant and demonstrates that these two millenia are different.

You also claimed of verse 6:

"This verse is like a commentary from the point of view of the first century AD, from John's point of view. From this perspective, the resurrection and the millenium are still future, hence the future tense. Verse 4 is from a future perspective, after the resurrection, hence "they lived" and "reigned" for a thousand years."

In other words, John, after transcibing this vision for the reader, steps back a moment and declares outside of this vision to the reader a summary as if he was back in the first century writing "they shall be priests...and they shall reign". I understand the temptation to claim this. However, no where in the text is that indication given. The problem is that there is no indication he ever steps out of his vision! Neither before the end of verse 6 or after. In other words, I suspect you are reading this into the text since it does not indicate this in any way.

Now to a parallel passage which will, I hope, clear up verse 4 and whether these are two groups and if so, is it necessary they both consist of deceased saints.

Turn to Ephesians 2.

I will simply point out many similarities in which I believe demonstrate that Ephesians 2 and Rev 20: 4-6 are discussing the same thing.

Ephesians 2: 5 KJV "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened (NIV -"made us alive") us together with Christ." (emphasis mine) (Paul is alive, his audience lives, yet he states that Christ "made us alive")

Rev 20: 4 KJV "...and they lived (NIV -"came to life") and reigned with Christ..." (similar language to Ephesians 2)

Ephesisans 2: 6 KJV And hath raised us up together..." (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 5 KJV "...This is the first resurrection."

Ephesisans 2: 6 KJV "...and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 4 KJV "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them..."

Ephesisans 2: 7 KJV "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus" (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 6 KJV "...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him..." (emphasis mine)

In other words, Rev 20 is not a passage about some future event which lasts for around 1000 years. Rather, the focus of this passage is Christ and what he already has done for those of us, living or dead, who are in him and the glories he will show us in the ages to come.

Soli Deo Gloria!,

Jean

Mr. Wohlberg, a Texas minister whose Web site — www.truthleftbehind.org — explains his interpretation of prophecy. "Christians need to prepare for Earth's final days, rather than expecting to disappear before they come."

So here's a question for Mr. Wohlberg. The Bible gives us direction on many (most) issues of life. How to live. Pay taxes. Marry. Live with family, church, neighbors. On and on. If the Bible give so much instruction on these lesser things, then why, as it comes to how Christians should live dealing with the anti-Christ and the tribulation, is there no instruction whatsoever to the Christian? Who will dare to site a verse, let alone a chapter, a book of the Bible, as to how Christians should live in these times? The Bible is silent on such instruction because there is no need for such instruction.

If Christians "need to prepare for Earth's final days" then Mr. Wohlberg will have to step up and make up some instructions for he will come up empty citing scripture.

So, let me see if I understand. In your opinion, the alleged fact the Bible is silent on instruction for Christians during the 'Great Tribulation' is proof that Christians will be raptured away before the 'Great Tribulation'.

One wishes you would just apply the same standard to a supposed 'pre-tribulational rapture', since there is no mention of a rapture coming before the tribulation in any passage in the Bible.

Jean

2 Tim 3:1-14 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

We don't need any special instructions on how to live in such a time. If we are truly believers, our lifestyle does not depend on the events around us, but on God's Word. Since God's Word, and its requirements do not change; neither should we.

The message is always the same. Do right, and never stop doing it!

...since there is no mention of a rapture coming before the tribulation in any passage in the Bible.

You have managed to make two mis-statements in the same one-half sentence.
Just because the English word 'rapture'does not appear in the text does not mean it is not so. If you prefer use the English equiv. of 'catching away' for the Greek instead of rapture.

Actually one can prove the pre-trib position through two passages. Paul precludes the 'rapture' text by claiming what he is about to say, is 'new revelation' i.e. never before revealed in scripture. (Behold I tell you a mystery ; (which is what?) That we shall not all sleep but we shall all be raised...in a twinkling of an eye...the dead in Christ shall rise first...etc)

Therefore...Since Job saw the final resurrection in which the dead were raised ("Though worms destroy this body....yet in my flesh shall I see God"), we have but two options: 1) That the 'rapture' (sorry; catching away) passage is indeed as Paul claims new revelation previously unreveled in Scripture (including the Book of Job) and therefore Pre-Trib. Or 2)Paul mis-spoke in calling this event 'new revelation', and the Bible is in error.

I believe among other doctrines the inerrancy of all Scripture so that leaves me....Pre-Trib. When it occurs I'll track you down and say I told you so.

"You have managed to make two mis-statements in the same one-half sentence.

Just because the English word 'rapture'does not appear in the text does not mean it is not so. If you prefer use the English equiv. of 'catching away' for the Greek instead of rapture."

OK, you'll have to help me here. Where are my two mis-statements? All I see is a diatribe about how the word 'rapture' is not actually in the Bible. I already know this and this has nothing to do with my question.

-snip-

"...Paul precludes the 'rapture' text by claiming what he is about to say, is 'new revelation' i.e. never before revealed in scripture..."

You'll have to help me out here as well. The 'rapture' text usually refers to 1 Thes. 4, but you quote 1 Corinthians 15. You also state that Paul claims he has a 'new revelation'. I can't find in either where Paul states that this is a 'new revelation'. Where is this claim? As you then start to quote 1 Corinthians 15, you hi-lite the word 'mystery'. Am I to assume you think that the word 'mystery' means 'new revelation'? If so, how?

Once you answer these questions, I will then comment on your 'proof'. Until then, I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Jean

Rapture could be described as a "near miss", but is NOT FOUND in Holy Bible. It is a modern made up concept. Again, Christ will come to rule on the Earth. Christians should want to be with their Saviour, Jesus Christ, ruling on the renewd earth from the New Jerusalem. Don't believe me ,read it in your Holy Bible. Look up these key words in a concordance!

Thanks again for your detailed exposition of your viewpoint.

"First, what is the context? Revelation is a roughly chronological prophecy."

This is an assumption. There are many similarities in 19 and 20 which indicate these are passages which speak of the same events, albeit from a different perspective. Both, for example, speak of a great battle in which all the enemy were destroyed. (If all the enemy were destroyed in 19, why are there more to destroy in 20?) We also see that both battles borrow the prophetic language of the battles from the same Ezekiel passage. In other words, it could be cronological as you say, but there are indications in which it is not.

But not if one follows a literal hermeneutic. The sense of the writing from 19 to 20 is one of time flow: Jesus defeats the world's armies, THEN imprisons Satan, THEN there is a thousand year perior, THEN Satan is released, THEN there is a second resurrection, THEN there is a second death. By roughly chronological", I refer to the progression of events from 1-22, while acknowleding the non-chronological, inset chapters, like 12, 13, 17.

"The first resurrection has already taken place, at Jesus' return in Chapter 11."

This is key! What is the definition of the first resurrection? What light do other passages in scripture shed on this resurrection.?

First, look to Revelation itself. It is good you have a Greek interlinear. It is also good you have quoted from the KJV and the NIV. I suggest you compare all these versions to one another. You will find that the NIV simply blows the translation (I actually prefer the NIV to the KJV, but I do acknowledge it really blew this translation).

Rev 20: 4

NIV 4. And I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

KJV 4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them.

Greek 4. And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them;

The Greek word for "judgement" is krima and does not mean "the authority to judge". It means a "verdict" was given them.

Given the fact they're sitting on thrones, and given Jesus' statement to the apostles (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:29-30 "you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel"), and given Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 6:2-3, "the saints shall judge the world . . . angels", it seems clear "krima" in this context DOES mean "authority to judge". Also look at Rev. 3:21, Proverbs 20:8

Now let's consider who these "souls" are.

Rev 20: 4

NIV "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands."

KJV "and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands"

Greek "and the souls of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of God, and those who did not do homage to the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead, and upon their hand"

Notice the Greek refers not to one but two groups of people: Those beheaded and those who did not give homage to the beast. Is this important? Yes, in context we see that the first group identified had most certainly been killed, the second group does not necessarily share that feature. So far we have two groups of people identified by John on which a verdict was given to them -one dead and one perhaps yet alive.

This is entirely consistent with Jesus description of His second coming and the first resurrection. The dead rise first and then the living are transformed into spiritual bodies. Thus we have both dead Christians and living Christians sharing in the same reward at this time. These are your two groups.

Rev 20: 4

NIV "And they came to live and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

KJV "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Greek "and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years" (emphasis mine)

Although the NIV says these souls "came to life and reigned", neither the KJV or the Greek are rendered this way. The KJV and the Greek simply say, "they lived and reigned".

To say "lived" is reference to the dead is equivalent to saying "came to life".

Rev 20: 5

NIV "5. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection."

KJV "5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Greek 5. but the rest of the dead not lived again till may have been completed the thousand years. This is the resurrection first." (emphasis mine)

Is the first resurrection tied to the two groups which "lived and reigned" or to the "rest of the dead" not living again until the thousand years are completed. I agree with you in that this applies to the former. But what is this first resurrection? Obviously resurrection means the dead rising to life, but this poses some problems with the testimony of the rest of scripture.

First, how can living people be resurrected? You are probably thinking that I am assuming the second group is yet alive, I will demonstrate later why this is not a mere assumption.

I have no problem with there being two groups of people, one living, one dead, since this agrees with scripture. I also have no problem with the "first resurrection" referring to the resurrection of the dead, not to the glorification of the living. I don't understand your problem with this.

Second, if this is the bodily resurrection of the believers, how do we reconcile that with John 6? John 6 claims that the resurrection is at "the last day". If we see "the thousand years" as a future event and if we view it as an earthly reign, then either John 6 is wrong or "the last day" is 1000 years long -hardly literal.

John 6: 40 (NIV) "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

John 6: 44 (NIV) "No one can come to me unless the Father who set me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

John 6: 54 (NIV) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day". (emphasis mine)

According to the "literal hermeneutic" we must take "the last day" to be a simple day -24 hours in length. It says "the last day". It does not say "the last day before the millenium". It says simply, "the last day".

Since these two facts seemingly contradict if their literal meaning is taken, then, according to the "literal hermeneutic" one might not be literal. In other words, either "the last day" is a figurative phrase with a spiritual meaning, or "the first resurrection" is a figurative phrase with a spiritual meaning. The question now is, which one. I will demonstrate which later.

This is not a contradiction. The last day refers literally to the resurrection of the saints, which does take place in a literal day and is the first resurrection. It is the last day OF THIS AGE, for with it, Jesus takes over the rule of the earth from Satan. It is also the beginning of the "day of the LORD" which shall never end as an age or as a symbolic "day". Since we know the Christian dead are raised, I don't see how that can be symbolic.

Rev 20: 6

NIV "6. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

KJV "6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priest of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

Greek "6. Blessed and holy he who has part in the resurrection first: over these the death second has no authority; but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years." (emphasis mine)

Notice I have highlighted the article "a" in each of the above translations. You had earlier mentioned:

"After verses 4 and 6, the Bible calls it "THE thousands years"--a single time period. Just to make sure, I looked in my 26 translations of the Bible and my Greek interlinear. The Greek phrase is "ta chilia eta" "the thousand years". All 26 translations render it that way."

This is wrong. I just showed you the NIV, the KJV, and a Greek interlinear which does not render this as "the thousand years". In fact, according to both Greek interlinears I have, the article "the" is not in verse 6.

Ahem. Please re-read my post. I was quoting verse 7, which referred to verses 4 and 6. True, these verses say "a", but verse 7 has "the" "ta" in Greek.

Furthermore, the characteristics of the relationship of the saints with the millenium mentioned in verse 4 is far different that the relation ship the saints have with the millenium in verse 6. In verse 4 "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.", yet in verse 6 we see a difference: "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years". Verse 4 makes no mention of "priests", only that the saints "lived and reigned". I think this is significant and demonstrates that these two millenia are different.

Verse 6 adds the detail about priesthood of believers. This is consistent with Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. This is merely an additional detail about the reward of Christians.

You also claimed of verse 6:

"This verse is like a commentary from the point of view of the first century AD, from John's point of view. From this perspective, the resurrection and the millenium are still future, hence the future tense. Verse 4 is from a future perspective, after the resurrection, hence "they lived" and "reigned" for a thousand years."

In other words, John, after transcibing this vision for the reader, steps back a moment and declares outside of this vision to the reader a summary as if he was back in the first century writing "they shall be priests...and they shall reign". I understand the temptation to claim this. However, no where in the text is that indication given. The problem is that there is no indication he ever steps out of his vision! Neither before the end of verse 6 or after. In other words, I suspect you are reading this into the text since it does not indicate this in any way.

I do this because I see the subject of verses 4 and 6 as clearly the same: the future reward of Christians. The change in tense between the two indicates a change in perspective. I agree there is no other indication of a change in perspective, but to me, it is the clearest explanation.

Now to a parallel passage which will, I hope, clear up verse 4 and whether these are two groups and if so, is it necessary they both consist of deceased saints.

And living! So we agree about the dead ones, at least! ;)

Turn to Ephesians 2.

I will simply point out many similarities in which I believe demonstrate that Ephesians 2 and Rev 20: 4-6 are discussing the same thing.

Ephesians 2: 5 KJV "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened (NIV -"made us alive") us together with Christ." (emphasis mine) (Paul is alive, his audience lives, yet he states that Christ "made us alive")

Rev 20: 4 KJV "...and they lived (NIV -"came to life") and reigned with Christ..." (similar language to Ephesians 2)

Ephesisans 2: 6 KJV And hath raised us up together..." (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 5 KJV "...This is the first resurrection."

Ephesisans 2: 6 KJV "...and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 4 KJV "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them..."

Ephesisans 2: 7 KJV "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus" (emphasis mine)

Rev 20: 6 KJV "...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him..." (emphasis mine)

In other words, Rev 20 is not a passage about some future event which lasts for around 1000 years. Rather, the focus of this passage is Christ and what he already has done for those of us, living or dead, who are in him and the glories he will show us in the ages to come.

Interesting interpretation. Certainly, we become alive spiritually at our conversion, and the Paul in I Cor. 6 compares our baptism to a resurrection, but the new birth is that: a birth, not a resurrection. Resurrection itself means to "stand again straight" re-sur-rect. This is a restoration to life, not the beginning of a new life. Your interpretation does not explain the strong congruence between I Cor. 15 and Revelation 20.

Soli Deo Gloria!,

Semper!

My personal opinion is that wars, rumors of wars, and massive amounts of one & two sentense paragraphs in the Washington Times, are all sure signs of the end times. Here's to the End of The Washington Times. Good Grief, my high school journalism teacher would have a fit.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

You left out the part where the disciples ask where they are taken and the Lord replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." (Luke 17:37)

The ones taken are those who are taken in judgment. The righteous are left behind. This is again explicitly stated by the Lord in Matthew 13 in his parable about the end of the age. His disciples asked him to explain the parable. He did as follows:

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The Left Behind interpretation ignores virtually every scriptural reference to the subject of the end of the world, the return of Jesus, and the judgment of the world. Too bad they don't heed the admonition of Jesus in the last sentence of the quote above.

You should research the greek for the word taken. It all depends upon the original greek context. It presents some interesting possibilities for study.

The word is "paralambano". It means "to take". The passage uses the singular passive conjugation, "paralambanetai" to say "be taken". The meaning depends even more on the entire context of the passage in which the word was found. See the parallel passage in Luke. When the disciples ask "Where" the one taken will be taken, Jesus gives the context: "Where you find the vultures, there you'll find the body."

This is in error. The Rapture was known to the Early church, it was just forgotten. If we examine the writings of Paul and Peter, we read of the Church waiting for the return of Jesus, not the tribulation. These men are in error! There is a man named RENALD SHOWERS, and he wrote a book titled MARANTHA! OUR LORD COME!! It is a study showing how the early church believed clearly in the coming of Jesus to receive them in Heaven, not to face a tribulation, but to be removed from Earth.

Is the term Rapture found in the Bible?

Will the Church go through the tribulation?

Pre-Wrath Confusion about the rapture

Two distinct phases of the second coming of Christ

Is the Great Tribulation future or fulfilled?

I believe the unsaved who rejected the Gospel before the Tribulation will have a chance during the tribulation...if they are still alive, that is!

It's the same millenium, see how the Saved are alive on Earth, while the unsaved are awaiting the White Throne Judgement? Both are awaiting that 1000 years to be over. One side awaits it for the Glory of the ending of all things, while another awaits it in anticipation of judgement, but they are both awaiting at the same time.

see post #134

those looking for a rapture are more likely to succumb to the first Jesus that appears on the scene

If you think about the rapture, exactly the opposite is true. The theory is Christians will be floating in the air (way up in the air, like in the clouds) when they meet Jesus. So, if someone comes along and claims to be Jesus, and he's standing on the ground, and you're standing on the ground, you would immediatly say to yourself "this is a false christ."

Thanks, RaceBannon. M

How come you guys NEVER seem to remember the Biblican admonishment that 'NOT EVEN THE ARCHANGELS OF HEAVEN KNOW THE LAST DAY.' ??????????????????????

All this falderal over how many angels are on the head of a pin, and how they got there, and what kind of dance they are doing and whether or not we can join in is POINTLESS!

Everything I need to know I learned from Christ, namely that I should be as committed to the Spirit of the Law of God as I am to its actual Word, and that I should love my fellow human beings as much as I would myself, and that I should live each day as if it were my last.

You guys just come across as twaddling over obscurities and technicalities by PREDICTIONS and FORTUNE-TELLING while out of the other side of the mouth you are condemning people for watching Harry Potter and not stamping out Wicca.