Support for pretrib rapture

[gratefulberean]

I was referring to the new testament usage by Jesus in Matthew 24:39 where he says "And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; The took in that passage is airō in the greek and one of the meanings of that word is h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence

i) cause to cease

.....Before the flood they were eating and drinking etc. like we are now, AND THEN during the tribulation one will be left and one taken as it was in the days of noah. Look in Matthew 24:30 This is talking about how everybody will see him and mourn, The rapture is a secret thing which will happen in an instant and found in Paul's writings 1 Cor 15:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18.

I am not dogmatic on that point, I could be wrong and we will find out one day soon I hope. That being said, I will leave it at that. I want you to know that we are still brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of our different views. :hug I am glad that you are into the word and searching the scriptures, that is what we all need to do. The bible is of no private interpretation, we should first go to the word of God and see what He says, before going to a commentator on tv or the internet. As bereans we are to search the scriptures daily to see what is true.




I just get excited when I debate. :hat My wife gets sick of hearing me sometimes, so I come here. :aha


I have been following your guys discussion, fascinating! I learn so much from you guys.

How does one go about looking up passages/words in Greek, Hebrew?

I would really like to know where to begin.

Again, great discussion!:thumb

[Zippetydoda]

I have been following your guys discussion, fascinating! I learn so much from you guys.

How does one go about looking up passages/words in Greek, Hebrew?

I would really like to know where to begin.

Again, great discussion!:thumb

Thanks, Greatefulberean all praise goes to the Lord, I am just searching like you......The place I go to find the greek and hebrew is blueletterbible.org type in the passage address and then on the left side next to the passage are the letters K C L. If you click on C it will bring up all the words in the text. You will see the actual word in hebrew or greek! That was so neat to find. And It will also give the strongs concordance reference numbers and when you click on that you get the definitions for the word, and you will find all the times the word is used in the bible as well. What a great resource this is! You can also click on L and it will list commentaries audio and written on those passages! I love J Vernon McGee's and Chuck Misslers commentaries.

The internet has opened up so much opportunity for the Christian to learn about the word! :-)

God bless!

[loriann9999]

Give your Pastor "kudos", he is spot on. Many confuse these passages. I highly recommend Footsteps of the Messiah, he goes step thru step on Mt 24. I think every prophecy student should have that book in their library. :thumb (For those who have the book, go to page 621-650)

I love this book and I can't recommend it enough. If anyone can afford it, it is a must have for your collection in my opinion.

[gratefulberean]

Thanks, Greatefulberean all praise goes to the Lord, I am just searching like you......The place I go to find the greek and hebrew is blueletterbible.org type in the passage address and then on the left side next to the passage are the letters K C L. If you click on C it will bring up all the words in the text. You will see the actual word in hebrew or greek! That was so neat to find. And It will also give the strongs concordance reference numbers and when you click on that you get the definitions for the word, and you will find all the times the word is used in the bible as well. What a great resource this is! You can also click on L and it will list commentaries audio and written on those passages! I love J Vernon McGee's and Chuck Misslers commentaries.

The internet has opened up so much opportunity for the Christian to learn about the word! :-)

God bless!

WOW! Very cool! I was just exploring that site! Thanks!

[HollowofHishand]

Castle ~ let me clear up the "7 days before the flood" thing. I believe that it shows that there were 7 days between the time that Noah was 'saved' and the rest drowned in judgment. So look at the rapture reference like this: Rapture, and then after 7 years, the judgment. There will be 7 years for repentance and for all we know, there were 7 days for those left outside the ark to repent. I think that when Noah and his family went into the ark that this was a signal to the people that it was almost "times up". and because the verse says that they were eating, drinking...etc UNTIL the day that Noah entered the ark, (and not "until the flood came"), that they perhaps knew they were in deep mud.

[mollymouse]

The Matthew 24 teaching is up on the church website.
http://www.bandonfellowship.org
Click on podcast and you should be able to hear the teaching. Thanks for all the good information you guys have provided on this thread. It's been very informative.

[Zippetydoda]

The Matthew 24 teaching is up on the church website.
http://www.bandonfellowship.org
Click on podcast and you should be able to hear the teaching. Thanks for all the good information you guys have provided on this thread. It's been very informative.

Thank you Molly....I am most interested in hearing this!

[mary]

I have been reading this thread
with interest and have enjoyed the Christ-
like spirit towards each posters.

May we learn from
each other as we search
the Scriptures like the Berean of Old.

Thanks RR moderators for
your example to make this
a civil event. I am sure the Lord is
pleased as we discuss His word.

Enjoyed,enjoying and plan to make
it a habit of enjoying as I read
with interest each
poster's words.

[Zippetydoda]

But Luke is a Gentile. He wrote this for the Gentiles. I have a hard time believing that these passages have nothing to do with us. Also, I have been taught that we CAN predict the second coming by doing the math from the tribulation and the day the Anti-Christ dies/comes back to life, etc. At least we can predict that with better certainty than the Rapture, right?

?? I'm confused, and would like further explanation.

Thanks!

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:hRv1Dzj-s4cJ:www.levitt.com/essays/luke.html+apostle+Luke+was+not+a+gentile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

WAS LUKE A GENTILE? BY THE TRADITION OF MEN OR THE WORD OF GOD?

Was Luke a Gentile?
by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.

Dr. Thomas McCall Dr. Thomas McCall, the Senior Theologian of our ministry, has written many articles for the Levitt Letter. He holds a Th.M. in Old Testament studies and a Th.D. in Semitic languages and Old Testament. He has served as Zola’s co-author, mentor, pastor, and friend for nearly 30 years.

This article appeared originally in the March 1996 Levitt Letter.
Page Contents (skip contents)


Introduction

As we speak and teach the Word, we often mention that the whole Bible is a Jewish book, and that all the writers of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, were Jews. Frequently, someone asks the question, “What about Luke, wasn’t he a Gentile?” This has been taught throughout church history for so long and so consistently, that it is assumed without question it must be true. However, when you study how this conclusion was reached by biblical commentators, you realize how slender their evidence is. The idea that Luke was a Gentile seems to be based more on tradition than any strong biblical evidence.
Importance of the Question

It may not seem important whether or not Luke was a Gentile, but when you think about the magnitude of his work, the issue becomes truly significant. By counting the pages written by Luke in both his Gospel and Acts, it is clear that Luke wrote more pages of the New Testament than any other writer, including Paul and John. If Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more pages of New Testament revelation to a Gentile than to any other writer. This would be remarkable, to say the least.

Personally, as a Gentile Christian, I would love to have one of “our guys” as a writer in the canon of Scripture, so I am naturally reluctant to find otherwise. However, the evidence appears overwhelming to me that Luke was, in fact, a Jew. The matter cannot be settled conclusively, because the Scriptures never specifically tell us Luke’s background, but the arguments for his being a Jew appear to far outweigh those for his being a Gentile.
Arguments for Luke Being A Gentile

Usually, biblical commentators simply assert that Luke was a Gentile, without offering any proof at all, as it is so universally believed. Some commentaries, though, present arguments for sustaining the concept of the Gentile background of Luke. Chief among these arguments are the lists from the Epistle to the Colossians.
The Lists in Colossians

In Colossians 4, the Apostle Paul closes his letter by listing the various people who are with him as he writes the epistle, and some of those who are addressed. In these lists Paul makes mention of some who are of “the circumcision” (Col. 4:10-11), and are, therefore, Jews. Although it is not perfectly clear which men are referred to, they are presumably the previous three: Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus. Paul apparently does not include Tychicus and Onesimus, mentioned before in verses 7-9, as being in the circumcision group.

Later in this same chapter, in verse 14, Paul refers to Luke, the beloved physician. The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.

Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.
The Name and Profession Arguments

Proponents have also argued that the name Luke (Lucas) is, in itself, evidence that he was a Gentile. However, the very names mentioned in Col. 4 as being in “the circumcision” are Gentile names: Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus. Paul’s name itself is a Roman name, which he used throughout his ministry among the Gentiles, instead of his Hebrew name, Saul. In the same way Peter’s Hebrew name was Simon. The fact of the matter is that most Jews who lived in the Diaspora used two names: one, a Jewish name, which was used in the synagogue, and the other, a Gentile name, which was used in business. So Luke could well be the public name of a Jew who lived among the Gentiles.

Others have actually claimed that Luke’s profession as a physician would be evidence that he was a Gentile. This would assume that there were no Jewish doctors in the Roman world. Such an idea is preposterous. Christ referred to physicians in Israel on several occasions:

“Physician, heal thyself…” (Luke 4:23)

“They that are sick have need of a physician…” (Matt. 9:12)

There is as much reason to believe that Jews were in the medical profession in ancient times as they are today.

Thus, none of the arguments supporting the idea that Luke was a Gentile are strong. It is helpful, then, to turn to the arguments that Luke was a Jew.
Arguments for Luke Being a Jew

There are several arguments that support the idea that Luke was a Jew. As has already been stated, there are no specific statements as to the background of Dr. Luke. Therefore, the only way we can know anything about Luke’s background is from inferences in the Scriptures.
The Rule: Oracles Given to Jews

After showing the sinful condition of the Jewish people, explaining how the Jews are just as much subject to sin as are the Gentiles, Paul asks the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” His answer was “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). The main advantage that Paul recognizes in the Jewish people was that when God gave revelation to the human race, He gave it to and through the Jews. He did not utilize the Gentile people for this purpose. This was the rule: that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. If Luke was an exception, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is an exception.

Thus, one has to prove conclusively that Luke was a Gentile before one should abandon the clear rule about the Jewish writing of Scripture. We must assume that Luke is a Jew unless the evidence is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is a Gentile. As we have seen above, the evidence from the lists in Colossians is so weak that it does not meet that criterion. Gentiles are blessed in many ways, especially during this Church Age, but God has never indicated that He has changed His rule of using only Jews to record His revelation.
Trophimus, Not Luke, the Cause of Paul’s Arrest

Dr. Luke was a constant companion of the Apostle Paul from the time that he joined the missionary apostle when he sailed from Troas to Europe. Luke accompanied Paul on his fateful last return trip to Jerusalem, and was an eyewitness to the arrest of Paul in the Temple in Acts 21. The crowd was greatly agitated by the presence of Paul in the Temple, and charged him with bringing Gentiles into the Temple precincts. This was a crime punishable by death. Luke explains that Paul never did bring any Gentiles into the Temple, but he was seen on the streets of Jerusalem with “Trophimus an Ephesian.” Apparently, Paul brought Trophimus with him to Jerusalem so that the apostles and the mother church there could see first-hand the fruits of his labor among the Gentiles. Even though the charge was false, they were able to spread the rumor among the people, and cause a near riot against Paul on the Temple Mount, and for this reason he was arrested.

The point is that, when the Jewish people wanted to accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the Temple, they chose Trophimus. Why didn’t they choose Luke, who was also with Paul, and was an eyewitness to these events? If Luke were a Gentile, it would have been far easier, and far more believable, to accuse Paul of bringing Luke with him into the Temple, rather than Trophimus. The fact that Luke was not mentioned in the accusation is a strong indication that he was not a Gentile. Luke was with Paul on several occasions when they made the various trips to Jerusalem in order to report on their missionary efforts to the apostolic church. The issue was never raised about Luke being a Gentile, although he was there in Jerusalem with Paul.

As Luke was not controversial when he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and the Temple, our assumption must be that he was also a Jew. Thus, there was no mention of Luke as a problem when Paul was arrested.
Luke’s Intimate Knowledge of the Temple

Another argument for the idea that Luke was a Jew is that he showed such an intimate knowledge of the Temple, more than any other of the Gospel writers. When he described the announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist, Luke went into considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the Levitical priests for service according to their families. He further described the position of the priest before the altar of incense, where the angel appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:8-20).

The fact that Luke alone of the four Gospel writers gives this account, and he does so with such vivid detail, argues for his being a Jew, familiar with the Temple procedures. One could even speculate that Luke might have been a Levite as well, as he knew so much about how the Temple operated. Is it logical to assume, without question, that Luke was a Gentile, when he had such a clear understanding of the most intimate workings of the Temple, where no Gentile was allowed to go?
Luke’s Intimate Acquaintance with Mary

Yet another argument is the striking intimacy that Luke had with the mother of Jesus, Mary. He relates the story of the birth of Jesus primarily from Mary’s point of view, and then said that she hid these things “in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). How did Luke, of all the Gospel writers, get so close to Mary that he was able to find out what she had hidden in her heart? As close-knit as the Jerusalem church was, and as difficult as it must have been for Gentiles to have gotten to the “inner circle” of the apostolic leadership, it seems highly unlikely that Luke could have gotten that close to Mary if he were a Gentile.

Actually, it appears that Luke might have served Mary for a time as her personal physician. This is speculation, but how else could he have had such a close relationship with her, so that he could draw from her the details she had hidden in her heart, and had discussed with few others? Luke would have had the opportunity to consult with Mary on the occasions when Paul made his reporting trips to Jerusalem, and especially while Paul was in prison in Caesarea for two years. Such access would have been quite understandable if Luke were a Jew, but would have been most unlikely if he were a Gentile.
Conclusion

My conclusion is, then, that we must infer that Luke was a Jew. The idea that he was a Gentile appears to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and tradition. The biblical evidence strongly supports the position that Luke was a Jew, and we should always believe the Scriptures over tradition, when there is a conflict between the two.

[Buzzardhut]

Trust me you are not the only one a bit confused. The problem stems from the fact that we contradict ourselves CONSTANTLY concerning this passage. I have tired discussing this numerous times but I always seem to get the thread shut down or deleted. :doh

I see the problem as this. We want to say this WHOLE passage is about 2nd coming and for the Jews but then we still keep the phrase "know one knows the day or hour" and apply to the rapture. That makes no sense and that is why you and I are confused. Now if we don't know when the 2nd coming is it follows that we don't know when the rapture is either. BUT, at some point (like abomination of desolation) we can figure it out to the day of the 2nd coming. So obviously this does not mean we won't ever be able to know 2nd coming day because the trib saints will be able to calculate. Also the Greek verb for know(present tense at the time) even supports this.
currently, no one knows the day or hour, after the rapture, those left behind, including Israel can figure it out but only after the AOD, and still they may not be able to pinpoint the exact day and exact hour, many do not become believers until they actually see Jesus in the sky, so they will never know the day nor hour until the see Jesus


Next part - Elect = those without mark

As far as one taken, one left...I am not convinced yet that it means taken in judgment. Maybe someone can convince me? :idunno We know that Jesus will gather the elect at his coming. Those are taken at the second coming. If it is meant to mean taken in judgment, then that would have to happen first before the gathering of the elect for someone to be left in the field or grinding at the mill. Now if he gathers his elect next, that leaves no one left. So we have all the elect gathered in Israel and all the "bad guys" taken out. Who is left for the sheep and goats judgment? I see it as the elect being taken and gathered together, then Jesus does the sheep and goats judgment.Everyone left behind is gathered at the Second Coming and are herded together for the sheep and goats judgment.