Tag: premillennialism

Does Revelation 3:10 Teach a Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

Does Revelation 3:10 Teach a Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

The “pre-tribulation rapture” is the belief that Jesus will remove the church (the living and the dead) from the earth before the great tribulation. Faithful Christians who believe this often cite Revelation 3:10 as a key proof for this doctrine. However, the preponderance of evidence does not support this claim.

  • The “time of testing” which from Jesus promises to protect his church is not the antichrist’s persecution against believers, but his own divine wrath against the antichrist.
  • Jesus’ promise is to the Christian congregation at Philadelphia as a collective whole, not to every believer individually. He made good on his promise because the original audience died ordinary deaths long ago. Jesus’ promise will apply equally to his worldwide church at the “time of the testing,” which is yet future.
  • In the context of Revelation 3:10, the phrase “keep/protect you from the hour of testing” probably does not mean physical removal out of a situation. Those who argue that it does mean this sometimes believe outdated and erroneous ideas about Greek grammar.
  • The bottom line is that Revelation 3:10 (by itself) does not support a pre-tribulation rapture. The preposition translated “from” is a very slender reed upon which to hitch your interpretive wagon. The doctrine may be true. But, it is likely not present in Revelation 3:10.

We’ll examine each of these, below.

What is this “time of testing”?

Here is our text:

The “time of testing” from which Jesus protects the church is the tail end of the great tribulation, when Jesus pours out the seven-seal judgments upon the kingdom of evil. This is a critical point. Many Christians are confused here.

  • Revelation 4-18 is not really about the antichrist’s reign of terror against believers—the “great tribulation.” Many Christians think it is about that. But they’re wrong (except for Revelation 13).
  • Instead, Revelation 4-18 is about the time at the end of this seven-year “great tribulation” when Jesus pours out the seven seals of judgment upon the kingdom of darkness.

We know this because Revelation 4-5 shows us the solemn run-up to this day of the Lord, which culminates with the slain Lamb being the only one worthy to break the seals and open the scroll which heralds the better tomorrow (Rev 5:2).

  • Because Jesus has overcome for his people, as our vicarious and righteous substitute, he alone may open the scroll and its seven seals (Rev 5:5).
  • As if to solemnize this awful but necessary time of divine wrath against evil, the angelic creatures sing: “Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9). 
  • Before Jesus can receive power, honor, glory, blessing, “and dominion forever and ever,” he must first destroy his evil counterpart and his wicked kingdom. What follows in Revelation 6-16 are the seven-sealed judgments of wrath against the antichrist and Babylon.

The horsemen, the brimstone, the incineration of one-third of the earth’s vegetation, the waters turning to blood, the mutant, demonic locust-like creatures—all the “bad stuff” we associate with Revelation is divine wrath against antichrist and his followers. The antichrist is doing none of this! Instead, Jesus is doing it to the antichrist and to his people.[1]

This means this “time of testing—the one about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth” (Rev 3:10) is against unbelievers—against the antichrist and his followers.[2] Jesus is testing whether they will repent and choose Jesus or cling to darkness. Some translations use the word “trial” here, but this not the best because Jesus is not evaluating the faith of believers. He is testing whether unbelievers will truly continue to reject him.

This judgment ends with the Lord destroying Babylon and the antichrist’s people wailing because Jesus has smashed their world (Rev 18:9-19). “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her” (Rev 18:20). Now that the Lord has vanquished the kingdom of evil, John tells us: “I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters, and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, ‘Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns’” (Rev 19:6). Jesus now returns to establish his kingdom on earth (Rev 19:11-21).

So, the “time of testing” is not the antichrist’s persecution of believers—it is Jesus’ wrath upon the kingdom of darkness. During this period, Jesus will protect his people. Before Jesus cracks open the sixth seal of judgment, he commands an angel to mark a vast number of believing Jewish people with his “seal” to protect them from the coming judgments (Rev 7:3; cp. Ezek 9:4-6; Ex 11:6-7, 12:13).

Who does Jesus protect?

Our passage is here—who is Jesus protecting and what kind of protection does he promise? He will protect his church (as a collective whole) from physical and spiritual destruction.

Because the church in Philadelphia (collectively, as a single referent)[3] is protected from this time of testing, it’s reasonable to believe that this protection applies to the entire church as a whole. The is a promise to the community, not to every single individual. So, taken collectively as a single community, Jesus will protect his church from this time of testing.

Pre-tribulational Christians go beyond the evidence when they insist that: (a) if any Christians die during the Great Tribulation then Jesus’ promise here is void, so (b) this must mean Jesus promises to physically remove the church from the scene. This does not necessarily follow.

First, as we saw, the “time of testing” is not the antichrist’s persecution of believers—it is Jesus’ wrath upon the kingdom of darkness. So, the entire objection fails.[4] Some object that, if this be true, then it’s cold comfort indeed:[5] “A whole bunch of y’all will die during the antichrist’s persecution, but don’t worry—I’ll protect the believers who are still alive when I unleash literal hell on earth. Cheers!” This is a false dilemma that demands: “What took you so long!?” One might as well criticize God for allowing the Israelites to suffer in Egypt before “finally” protecting them during the final plague (Ex 2:23-25; 12:23, 29).

Second, even if we (wrongly) conclude that Jesus does promise protection during the time of antichrist’s persecution during the last 3.5 years of his sinister reign … because Jesus’ promise is to the church as a whole, collectively, it simply means that the church will be protected during this period. That is, as an organism and a worldwide family of Jesus people, Satan shall never destroy the church because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Indeed, Jesus promised that he would intervene to stop this great tribulation lest no believers be left alive (Mt 24:21-22). That intervention is the judgments of the seven-sealed scroll which together destroy antichrist’s kingdom (culminating at Rev 16, re-told in Rev 17-18).

Will some believers will die during this “time of testing” when Jesus pours out the seven judgments upon the whole world? The answer is yes—but they will die at the antichrist’s hands, not Jesus’ hands. That is, the antichrist will never destroy “the church” as a whole. The Japanese killed many Americans sailors in the Pacific theater of operations in World War 2, but they never destroyed the U.S. Navy. Many Israelites died under Pharoah’s rule in Egypt (Ex 1:15-16), but “Israel” never did die.

  • John tells us about believers who have already died during the antichrist’s reign of terror before Jesus responds to the prayers by unleashing judgment upon the kingdom of darkness (Rev 6:9-10, 7:13-14). These martyrs who died during this great tribulation plead for justice upon “those living upon the earth” who killed them—the very people who are the objects of this “time of testing.”
  • After Jesus opens the fifth seal, the angels tell the great tribulation martyrs “to rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers and sisters who were to be killed even as they had been, was completed also” (Rev 6:11).
  • But, we also see believers being sealed and protected—John highlights Jewish believers in particular who are safe from these judgments (Rev 7:3, cp. Rev 9:4).

Some may protest that it is too fantastic to believe that believers will be protected from death at a time when the first four “trumpet judgments” of the seventh seal destroy a major portion of the world (Rev 8:6-12). But, consider the plagues upon Israel before the Exodus: “But not even a dog will threaten any of the sons of Israel, nor anything from person to animal, so that you may learn how the LORD distinguishes between Egypt and Israel … The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will come upon you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt” (Ex 11:6, 12:13).

Kept from the hour?

Here is the passage—what kind of protection is Jesus promising? Physical removal from the scene, or protection from danger during the time of testing?

Advocates for a pre-tribulation rapture expend much energy on what it means to be protected from the time of testing. Bible teachers crack open their Greek New Testaments (or fire up their bible software) and begin speaking about the preposition ἐκ (“from”), which in its most basic, original sense suggests an exit from some sort of relationship.[6] So, pre-tribulationists may argue, the idea is that Jesus will take the church away from the coming wrath.

This doesn’t necessarily follow, for a host of nerdy reasons that I’ll try to explain without making you fall asleep.

Blurred lines and prepositions

First, while the original meaning of the preposition ἐκ does indicate motion out of something, that certainly isn’t its exclusive or even primary sense in the New Testament. By then, prepositions no longer had a rigid meaning, which means you cannot say: “it must mean ONLY THIS!” Some pre-tribulation advocates do not seem to appreciate this because they sometimes rely on an outdated understanding of prepositions.[7] Language changes over time, and by the New Testament era the precise distinctions of meaning between koine Greek prepositions had now blurred and overlapped.[8]

  • For example, the preposition εἰς, in a strict sense, means “motion into a thing”[9]—you pour coffee into a cup. But, the Gospel of Mark says Jesus “was sitting on (εἰς) the Mount of Olives” (Mk 13:3).
  • If you want to insist on the classical meaning for this word, you’d translate it as “Jesus was sitting into the Mount of Olives.” Of course, that’s ridiculous—is he a mole, burrowing into the soil?
  • What’s happened is that the meaning of εἰς has blurred and overlapped with that of another preposition (ἐπί), whose “basic idea is ‘upon.’”[10]

What happens with every word is that its original sense expands into all kinds of figurative uses, and this expanded meaning eventually moves far afield of the “original,” rigid “meaning.”This is why, in English, the original meaning for the word “ball” is “a round or roundish body or mass.”[11] But, this meaning has expanded to mean a basketball, or a testicle, or a great time (“I had a ball at the park yesterday!”), or even a formal dance (“Cinderella made it to the ball!”).

With the preposition ἐκ, its basic sense of spatial movement out of something has expanded to indicate:

  • Disassociation (“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,” Gal 3:13).
  • Derivation (the crown was made from thorns, Mt 27:29).
  • Time (the man was blind from birth, Jn 9:1).
  • Means (a person isn’t justified by means of doing what the law requires, Gal 2:16).
  • Personal agency (people are born by the will of God, Jn 1:13).

… and more. My point is that, in Revelation 3:10, the preposition ἐκ doesn’t necessarily mean the Lord will physically remove believers out of this world, as in: “Hang on! I’m gonna get y’all outta there!”[12]

Second, regardless of that point, in Greek the sense of John’s phrase “protected from the time of testing” still doesn’t suggest physical motion out of a situation. When you have the construction like that in Revelation 3:10 of “stative verb (τηρήσω) + transitive preposition (ἐκ),” the stative verb swallows up the transitive force of the preposition.[13] In Revelation 3:10, this suggests the idea of physical (i.e., transitive) motion—spatial exit from a situation—falls away.[14] This implies we’re left with some kind of protection from the time of testing that doesn’t include physical removal from the scene.

Therefore, building on our first point, we must look beyond the original, rigid meaning of ἐκ to rightly understand the nature of Jesus’ protection—we need the context.[15]

What does “from” (ἐκ) mean in Revelation 3:10?

A normal Christian with a good English translation doesn’t have to do this—but here is what responsible nerds must do “behind the scenes” to figure out what, say, Revelation 3:10 is saying.[16]

  1. Look at the list. As we learned, every word has a range of possible meanings. Look at the preposition’s original, rigid meaning (for example,ἐκ is spatial—“out of”), then look at the range of figurative meanings common to the word. It isn’t true that a preposition has a “literal meaning.”[17] Instead, it has a range of meanings, and some (depending on context) are more likely than others.[18]
  2. Look at the word(s) the preposition modifies. In this case, “the time of testing” (τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ) is in the genitive case, whose historical function was to depict a description or a separation.[19] Usually, prepositions govern the nouns they modify.[20] In Revelation 3:10, both the preposition and the genitive case of the modified noun indicate separation from this “time of testing.”
  3. Look at the context. What does the larger paragraph tell us about what the prepositional phrase means?

Using this method, the preposition in Revelation 3:10 likely means protection from Jesus’ divine wrath which, during this “time of testing,” he will unleash upon antichrist and his kingdom:

  1. Look at the list.

Because (as we saw, above) a stative verb swallows up the transitive nature of the preposition, ἐκ likely doesn’t mean “physical removal outta here” in Revelation 3:10. Instead, it’s probably a preposition of separation by disassociation.[21] Jesus will somehow separate us from the time of testing, and the best rendering here is “protection from the time of testing.” The most logical kind of protection from something, without involving physical motion away from it, is to be guarded and protected during the event.

Elsewhere, John uses the very same construction[22] to record that Jesus prayed that the Father would “keep them from the evil one” (Jn 17:15b). That is, protect us by separating us from Satan—not isolating us from his physical presence, but protecting us from his dominating power. In a similar way, in our passage Jesus promises to protect the church from the power of this time of divine judgment upon the kingdom of evil—just as he did in Egypt before the Exodus.

  1. Look at the word(s) the preposition modifies.

As we said (above), the genitive case here suggests separation from the time of testing, which pairs nicely with the preposition which conveys the idea (in this context) of a non-physical disassociation from the time of testing.

  1. Look at the context.

Jesus tells this church in Philadelphia that he has set before them “an open door,” which probably means a “door” of ready access to him “because you have a little power, and have followed My word, and have not denied My name” (Rev 3:8). Despite their likely small numbers (“a little power”) and seeming impotence, they are faithful. The door to the Messianic kingdom remains open and ready for them, despite this church’s “unimpressive” nature.[23] He promises to deal with a specific cabal of Jewish people in the city who hate this congregation and are persecuting it.[24] These folks, Jesus declares, are not “Jews” at all—their “synagogue” actually belongs to Satan, who is tricking them (cp. Jn 8:44).

But, Jesus assures them, because they have persistently obeyed (“kept”) his message about perseverance, he will protect (“keep”) the church in Philadelphia from the time of testing—the one about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell upon the earth (Rev 3:10). They will be protected during the time when Jesus unleashes the seven-sealed judgments onto the kingdom of evil (Rev 6-16).[25] He will return soon (“quickly”), so they must hold firmly to their faith as they endure persecution from the local “synagogue” and narrow-eyed suspicion from Roman authorities—or else they may lose their crown (Rev 3:11). In other words, keep on persevering and holding on!

Jesus will make the ones who overcome all these difficulties “a pillar in the house of my God,” and he will write his name on their foreheads to mark them as his own. He will not write his own name only, but the names of the Father and of the new Jerusalem—the celestial city (Rev 3:12).

Bottom line

The bottom line is that Revelation 3:10 (by itself) likely does not support a pre-tribulation rapture. A preposition is a very slender reed upon which to hitch your wagon.[26] It doesn’t mean a pre-tribulation rapture is wrong. It just means that Revelation 3:10 probably doesn’t teach it. I believe the preponderance of evidence here does not support a pre-tribulation rapture, but it would be a mistake for either side to be dogmatic.

  • In terms of weight of evidence, “preponderance of evidence” is the weakest–it means something is more likely than not true.
  • This is followed by “clear and convincing” evidence, which means what it says.
  • Finally, the strongest case is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which you may be familiar with from bad police movies or TV shows.
  • My assessment about whether the pre-tribulation rapture is present in Revelation 3:10 is at the level of “preponderance of evidence.”

Jesus swears he is returning soon and, if the church perseveres in faith, he promises to protect this local church from the outpouring of his divine judgment that will one day come: “In this great trial, the servants of Christ shall be kept safe.”[27] He doesn’t explicitly say how he will protect them. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that it will be protection from the power of the divine judgments (Rev 6-16), just as God protected the Israelites from the plagues in Egypt.

Of course, Jesus did fulfill this promise to the church in Philadelphia because they died long before the antichrist’s reign—which is still future today! He did protect them from this time of divine wrath against the kingdom of evil. But ultimately, this is a promise to the entire church—to the entire Jesus family that is alive during the great tribulation. When the Lamb who was slain cracks open the seals to open the scroll (Rev 6-16), he will protect his church from the power of this time of testing against antichrist, his people, and his kingdom of evil.

Translation

ὅτι ἐτήρησας (BDAG, s.v., sense 3) τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς (gen. comm. content) μου, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω (BDAG, s.v., sense 2d) ἐκ (disassociation = sit. out of which someone is brought = BDAG, s.v., sense 1c) τῆς (monadic) ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ (att. gen.) τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι (art. inf. = appositional clause) ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης πειράσαι (anarthrous = purpose) τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

“Because you have persistently obeyed my message about perseverance, I also will protect you from the time of testing—the one about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth.”

[1] Buist Fanning briefly states that the ones who hide from Jesus’ wrath in Revelation 6:16-17 are believers who die because of the divine judgments, but this makes no sense in context. He does not try to substantiate the claim—he just makes it in one sentence (Revelation, in ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 177). These people are likely unbelievers who follow the antichrist.

[2] “There the faithful are sealed with a view to their preservation from the assaults of demons, but are not thereby secured against physical death … It will be observed that the demonic trial spoken of, while worldwide, was to affect only ‘those that dwell upon the earth,’ i.e. the non-Christians” (R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, vol. 1, in ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 89).

[3] The referent is singular in Greek, referring to the Christian community in Philadelphia as a collective whole.

[4] For example, Jeffrey Townsend objects: “This presents an immediate problem for post-tribulationism since it holds that the church will be preserved on earth during the hour of testing. Yet verses such as Revelation 6:9–10; 7:9, 13, 14; 13:15; 14:13; 16:6; 18:24; and 20:4 present a time of unprecedented persecution and martyrdom for the saints of the tribulation period” (“The Rapture in Revelation 3:10,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, BSAC 137:547 (Jul 1980), at 153).

He is incorrect—the horrors in Revelation 6-16 are not the antichrist persecuting Christians. It is Jesus pouring out divine wrath upon the kingdom of evil.

[5] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 286. “What good does it do to be preserved from the physical consequences of divine wrath and still fall prey to a martyr’s death?”

[6] Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 103.

[7] Robert Thomas (Revelation 1-7, 284-86), Paul Feinberg (“Pre-tribulation,” in The Rapture, 63-68), and Craig Blaising (“Pre-tribulation,” in The Rapture, 38, note 67) rely heavily upon the arguments of Jeffrey Townsend, who in turn relied on A. T. Robertson’s assessment of the preposition at issue: “According to Robertson, ‘The word means ‘out of,’ ‘from within,’ not like ἀπό or παρά’” (Townsend, “Revelation 3:10,” 253).

But, as modern Greek grammars recognize, Robertson was incorrect to insist on precise, classical categories to distinguish koine Greek prepositions from one another. Townsend reflects this error when he states: “This is an untenable position because the idea of preservation in and through the hour of testing would normally have been expressed by ἐν or διά” (“Revelation 3:10,” 253). He is wrong.

Dan Wallace’s admonition is relevant here: “… too often prepositions are analyzed simplistically, etymologically, and without due consideration for the verb to which they are connected. Prepositions are often treated in isolation, as though their ontological meaning were still completely intact” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 359).

[8] Wallace, GGBB, 362-63; Harris, Prepositions, 34-35; Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 85-86.

[9] William Arndt (et al.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). s.v. Hereafter “BDAG.”

[10] BDAG, s.v.

[11] Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “ball,” noun, sense 1 (Springfield: Merriam-Webster, 2026), 132.

[12] “[I]ndeed, it is now becoming more and more clearly recognized that it is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that classical accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the Koine period” (C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 49).

[13] Wallace, GGBB, 358-59. “Stative verbs override the transitive force of prepositions. Almost always, when a stative verb is used with a transitive preposition, the preposition’s natural force is neutralized; all that remains is a stative idea.” Emphasis in original.

[14] This is not the case in John 17:15a, which bears a transitive verb (ἄρῃς) + a transitive preposition (our old friend ἐκ) = the sense of movement out of this world is retained. Jesus prayed: “I do not ask that you take them away from the world …” (οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου).

[15] “It is important to remember that prepositions are extremely flexible in meaning, and careful consideration of the literary context is essential in determining the nuance of a preposition” (Andreas J. Köstenberger; Benjamin L. Merkle; Robert L. Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament (Nashville: B&H, 2016; Kindle ed.), KL 10481-10482).

[16] I adapted this from Harris, Prepositions, 31. I left off his fourth step because it does not apply in this case.

[17] Erroneously, Craig Blaising wrote: “This view depends on a ‘dynamic’ interpretation of the preposition ek …” (“A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture,” in Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Alan Hultberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 38). This is incorrect and does not reflect the realities of language in general, let alone koine Greek.

[18] Young, Intermediate Greek, 86.

[19] Young, Intermediate Greek, 23.

[20] Wallace, GGBB, 360-62.

[21] BDAG, s.v., sense 1c; cp. Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (hereafter “GE”), ed. Franco Montanari (Leiden: Brill, 2015),s.v., sense II.A.c.

[22] Gk: τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ = preposition ἐκ + genitive object. “[T]he thought is quite in keeping with that of our Seer” (Charles, Revelation, 1:89-90). And, the apostle also wrote this same phrase at both John 17:15 and Revelation 3:10. This suggests it is a stylistic quirk of John’s of which we ought to take note.

[23] Robert Mounce, The Book of Revelation, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 117.

[24] Some people think this means that members of this hostile Jewish synagogue will come to believe Jesus is their Messiah. Others think Jesus refers to their eventual acknowledgment of him in a non-saving way—perhaps on the day of judgment (Rev 20). That is, “every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess …” (etc.).

[25] Some pre-tribulation advocates eagerly seize upon a distinction between (a) being kept from the danger itself, and (b) being kept from the time period of this danger. The latter, they sometimes claim, suggests a physical removal from the scene. In truth, this is a de minimis argument.

[26] For example, Paul Feinberg spent five pages discussing the preposition ἐκ as he supported the pre-tribulation rapture perspective at Revelation 3:10. If a preposition is the best you got, then your argument is very weak (“The Case for a Pre-tribulation Rapture Position,” in The Rapture: Pre, Mid, or Post-Tribulation, ed. Stanley Gundry and Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 63-68).

[27] Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers: A Critical and Explanatory Commentary, New Edition, vol. 2 (London; Oxford; Cambridge: Rivingtons; Deighton, Bell and Co., 1872), 969. Similarly, John Gill writes that: “it will be known who are his true churches, and pure members; and these he’ll keep close to himself, and preserve safe amidst all the distress and confusion the world will be in” (An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 3 (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 711).

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (pt. 5)

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (pt. 5)

We continue our look at the great prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. Read the rest of the series.

This prophecy wraps up here, in the last bit of Daniel 9:27. It is the antichrist will make a covenant. He is the one to whom Titus Vespasianus—the conqueror and destroyed of Jerusalem in A.D. 70—pointed in Daniel 9:26 (“the people of the prince who is to come”). With whom will antichrist make this covenant and for how long? How does this prophecy end, in light of other scripture passages?

The covenant—with whom and for how long?

Gabriel tells Daniel:

And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate (Daniel 9:27).

Who are “the many” with whom this evil ruler will make this covenant? Gabriel does not explain who the “many” are. If you believe the “he” in Daniel 9:27 is Jesus, then “the many” would be believers—members of the new covenant in Christ’s blood. But we’ve seen that this isn’t the best interpretation, so we’ll leave that aside and instead assume the antichrist makes a covenant with … someone. There are two good options:

  • Option 1: Because Gabriel told us at the beginning that this prophecy was “for your people and your holy city” (Dan 9:24), we might assume the “many” here are the people of Israel—the nation.[1]
  • Option 2: However, another option is that the “many” with whom Antichrist makes a covenant are his followers—that is, the unsaved people who desire (either because of terror or by demonic conviction) to ally themselves to antichrist in a crude imitation of Jesus’ coming kingdom.[2]

Three factors tip the scales in favor of Option 1:

  • The angel Gabriel said this prophecy was “for your people and your holy city” (Dan 9:24). This suggests the Israeli people are the focus of the prophecy.
  • The antichrist’s actions in Daniel 9:27 seem to be against the people with whom he made a covenant—they are the ones against whom he moves “in the middle of the week.” It makes little sense for the Antichrist to attack and persecute the people who are already on his side.
  • Other passages very strongly suggest there will be a period of approximately seven years during which antichrist specifically persecutes Israel (Rev 11, 13). The Book of Revelation paints these events in a dramatically figurative manner with a strong Jewish flavor (see Rev 11:1-8).

So, it seems better to understand the antichrist as making some kind of covenant with the nation of Israel. We do not know what this covenant will be about—whether it will be voluntary or coerced. The covenant may not be voluntary—the word can give the sense of the evil ruler forcing it on the basis of superior strength.[3]

Because we already learned that each “seven” = a unit of seven years, and that the first 69 “sevens” work when interpreted this way, it’s reasonable to believe this 70th “seven” is also one unit of seven years. Remember, this 70th “seven” is the last event in Gabriel’s timeline.

The scriptures often give hints of a terrible calamity during the last days, lasting for approximately seven years.

  • Revelation 11:1-13 speaks of two special, powerful witnesses for Jesus who go about Jerusalem for 1,260 days or 42 months (≈ 3.5 years), preaching and doing miracles, before a ferocious, sinister, and evil creature kills them both—the Antichrist, empowered by a “dragon” who represents Satan.
  • This antichrist/beast figure then rules in a cruel and evil manner for 42 months (≈ 3.5 years; Rev 13:1-10).
  • Combined, this is a total of ≈ seven years, which Daniel hints is characterized by (a) one half (3.5 years) of relative peace but impending danger, and then (b) 3.5 years of abject evil.

In Daniel 9:27, in the midst or middle of this covenant that lasts seven years, we learn “he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” On face value, this makes no sense—unless there is a temple (complete with a re-launched, old covenant sacrificial system) in Jerusalem at which the antichrist can put a stop to this. Many Christians in America believe it must mean this.[4] If so, there must first occur a series of events so cataclysmic that they seem implausible today:

  1. The modern state of Israel must completely change its character and become a Jewish nationalist state. This would be a big deal. Modern Israel is a very secular country.
  2. Israel must expel all Muslim structures and worshippers from the historical site of the temple in Jerusalem. This is almost too fantastic to believe—it would have to be a miracle.
  3. Israel must have sufficient military and economic resources to pull this off in the face of determined opposition—many, many, many political stars would have to align.

With God, all things are possible. God can do this if he wishes. Many Christians believe he will—this is why so many bible teachers watch Israel and Middle East politics very closely. Unfortunately, some of these teachers make absurd speculations and are poor ambassadors for their position—and for Christianity.[5] But Daniel does not necessarily mean there will be another temple operating in Jerusalem, complete with a restoration of the sacrificial system. It may only mean that worship in general is abolished and, on that interpretation, Gabriel explains this using old covenant language.[6]

Regardless—the antichrist will forcibly stop believers from worshipping the one true God.

How does the prophecy end?

The antichrist will then do two things:

  • “On the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate.” This probably uses the figure of an over-spreading shadow of darkness and evil (the “wing of abominations”) filling the land. This antichrist makes Jerusalem “desolate” because he has outlawed all worship of the true God—it is now an empty shell. The apostle Paul tells us the antichrist “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess 2:4).
  • Daniel continues: “… until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.” This darkness will spread across the world until the antichrist is suddenly destroyed.

This tells us that antichrist will be completely destroyed, in accordance with a decision God made long ago. In Revelation 19:20, we learn that when Jesus returns: “… the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone.”

Now, once Messiah returns (i.e., “the second coming”) and casts antichrist and the false prophet into the lake of fire and locks Satan away in the abyss (Rev 20:1-4), righteousness will reign and all the promises of Daniel 9:24 will come true. The 70 “sevens” end with Christ inaugurating his 1,000-year kingdom reign on earth.

  • Immediately after this millennium (“When the thousand years are completed …” Rev 20:7), Satan will be released from prison and lead a rebellion against Jesus’ kingdom, at which point God will vaporize this wicked host with a fireball from on high (Rev 20:7-10).
  • Some may protest that, because Satan will quickly find folks to join his rebellion at the end of Christ’s millennial reign, the everlasting righteousness (etc.) Gabriel promised in Daniel 9:24 could not arrived at the beginning of the millennial kingdom.
  • But this need not follow—Satan’s rebellion is put down so swiftly and so decisively that sin and wickedness will not reign or have any impact on the world. God smacks this last gasp rebellion down immediately.

So, we are left with antichrist destroyed. Other important passages tell us this happens when Jesus returns, and at that time “THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH LIKE THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt 13:43) and there will be peace on earth. The six-item list from Daniel 9:24 will be accomplished, and the Messianic reign will begin.

[1] Barnes declares “[t]here is nothing in the word here which would indicate who they were …” (“Daniel,” 182, emphasis in original), but he surely forgets that Gabriel told Daniel (9:24) the emphasis of the prophecy was the people of Israel.

[2] See, for example, H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Columbus: Wartburg, 1949; reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 431-32).

[3] Joyce Baldwin, Daniel (Downers Grove: IVP, 1978), 191. “Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:736).

[4] Walvoord, Daniel, 235.

[5] Michael Svigel, a dispensationalist scholar, writes: “For some reason, the study of eschatology tends to attract a disproportionate number of—let me be blunt—hacks and quacks. End-times hacks produce mediocre, uninformed, trite work for the purpose of self-promotion or money. They ride the end-times circuits tickling ears with sensationalistic narratives, usually resting their interpretations of Scripture on current events or far-fetched conspiracy theories. Or they flood the market with cheap paperback books with red, orange, yellow, and black covers, usually repeating the same worn-out words they used in previous editions of their end-times yarns—sometimes with updates to fit their interpretations with the latest current events. Many of these hacks can be classified as end-times quacks” (The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st-Century Church (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2024), 24).

[6] Stephen Miller, Daniel, in NAC, vol. 18 (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 272. Leupold suggests that “all organized religion and worship as offered by the church of the Lord are to be overthrown when this prince has his day” (433).

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (pt. 4)

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (pt. 4)

We continue our look at the great prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. Read the rest of the series.

We come now to the last verse of Daniel’s great prophecy. This has been a long journey. If it makes you feel better, many good teachers have struggled to rightly understand this passage. The most insane discussion of which I’m aware is from a British pastor named Andrew Willett in 1622—he devoted 96 pages to answering 89 questions about the mysterious 70 “sevens”![1]  

In Daniel 9:27, there are three key questions to consider:

  1. Who is the mysterious “he” in Daniel 9:27?
  2. With whom and for how long does this guy make a covenant?
  3. How does the prophecy end?

We’ll discuss each, in turn, to wrap up this series. This article answers the first question

Who is the mysterious guy?

The bible says:

And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate (Daniel 9:27).

We need to figure out who this person is who will “confirm a covenant with the many for one week.” Because Gabriel doesn’t use a name in Daniel 9:27 but just says “he will put a stop …,” we must look back and identify the last notable person Gabriel mentioned in Daniel 9:26. Who is it?

It is “the people of the prince who is to come” whom Gabriel last mentioned. The guy mentioned in our verse here in Daniel 9:27 doesn’t seem very friendly. He (a) confirms a covenant of some sort for one “seven” or “week” (the 70th in this vision), and (b) he stops the sacrifices and grain offering, (c) he ushers in some sinister abomination that destroys or desecrates, and eventually (d) he himself is destroyed.

So, who is this strange man who does all this? Many good bible teachers have suggested many options. We’ll focus on three common possibilities, one of which we can dismiss immediately:

  • Option 1: The man in Daniel 9:27 is the Roman general Titus Vespasianus, whom we met in Daniel 9:26, who will destroy the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Daniel 9:27, the argument goes, is still about what happened in 70 A.D. at the end of the First Jewish War.[2]
  • Option 2: The guy is Jesus.
  • Option 3: The antichrist—the evil ruler who is to come (2 Thess 2; Rev 13).

We can dismiss Option 1 straightaway—the six-item summary of the entire prophecy at Daniel 9:24 ends with paradise regained. But Option 1 leaves us stranded at halftime with no resolution, no eternal righteousness, no removal of sin, no closure. This option is wrong.

Option 2 is more interesting. This is how the argument goes:

  • Jesus establishes or (some say) re-affirms the covenant with his church—that is, the new covenant that the prophets said would one day arrive (Ezek 36:25; Jer 31). He would establish “true religion.”[3]
  • So, they assume, Jesus “put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” in the sense that he made the old covenant sacrifices obsolete (Heb 8:1-13; Mt 27:51).
  • And, following on from that great event, they believe the “abominations” are the manner in which the Roman armies profaned the temple sanctuary by destroying it.

Further, these same Christians also believe the “he” in Daniel 9:27 cannot be the antichrist because:

  • It is the “people of the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 who will destroy the temple and its sanctuary—an event we now know happened in 70 A.D.
  • In Daniel’s day this was all in the future. The people who did this (the Romans) belonged to a particular prince or leader (the Hebrew word can mean either one). And, that leader was the Roman general Titus Vespasianus.
  • So, that whole discussion was over by the end of Daniel 9:26—that verse spoke about Titus Vespasianus, and that subject is finished.
  • So, Daniel 9:27 must be about a different guy—a guy like Jesus the Messiah.

But this is not best way to understand the passage.[4] Option 3 is the way. There are a few good reasons why:

  • First, the guy at Daniel 9:27 seems very unfriendly.
  • Second, the length of this 70th “seven” ought to match those of the other 69 “sevens.”
  • Third, the last guy Gabriel mentioned was the coming leader whose people will destroy the temple (Dan 9:26)— the Roman general Titus Vespasianus foreshadows the antichrist to come.

First, this guy from Daniel 9:27 doesn’t seem nice. But Jesus is nice. Many (but not all) English bible versions agree and so they translate the conjunction after the covenant as adversative (וַחֲצִ֨י)—the guy does something sinister after he confirms the covenant.

The two emphases are very different. The NASB (et al) sees this leader take a dark turn sometime after he confirms the covenant. The ESV (et al) just sees another event following it. There is no “right way” to render the conjunction—context must decide. But, it’s enough for you to know that many solid bible translations understand Daniel 9:27 to be describing something very bad.

Second, the length of this 70th “seven” ought to match those of the other 69 “sevens.”

  • If this last and 70th “seven” is only a symbolic number, then why does God specifically say this person will abolish the sacrificial system in the middle of the week? It is difficult to understand why God would give specifics if the time-period is symbolic.
  • Christians who take this approach really struggle to make this last “seven” make any consistent sense. One bible teacher admitted this was “the most embarrassing portion of the prophecy” because he could not find a good solution.[5]
  • There are no crazed beasts (Dan 2, 7), flying scrolls, women in pots, or storks carrying a wicked woman off to the far East here (Zech 5) that suggest this passage is figurative language. When we see that stuff elsewhere, we know it isn’t painting reality in “normal” hues. But that isn’t happening here—this is normal language. This suggests we ought to understand the language in a normal, straightforward way.
  • Also, we ought to interpret the “sevens” consistently throughout this passage. We’ve already seen that the interpretation that understands “one seven = one set of seven years” makes the best sense of the evidence. So, this “70th seven” ought also to be understood as a period of seven years. This suggests the evil leader (the antichrist) will establish a covenant that lasts seven years (i.e., the 70th “seven”).
  • John Gill, the great Baptist pastor, agreed. It cannot be the Messiah at Daniel 9:27, he argued, “for this is not for one week only, but for ever.”[6] Messiah rules forever, not for one “seven” only!

Third, the last guy Gabriel mentioned was the coming evil ruler whose people will destroy the temple (Dan 9:26), so the antichrist sounds like our guy.

  • The way language works is that we identify unnamed people, like the mysterious “he” in Daniel 9:27, by two methods: (a) identifying the most recent name just mentioned, or (b) looking back at the most prominent name featured in the paragraph or text cluster which came immediately before.
  • In this case, the most recent and prominent person is the “prince who is to come” whose people destroy Jerusalem and its sanctuary (Dan 9:26). This suggests the mysterious “he” is the Antichrist.[7]
  • There are clear bible passages that tell us that a sinister, dark figure will emerge in the last days who will demand divine worship and persecute God’s people.[8] This man of lawlessness will only be destroyed when Jesus returns (see 2 Thess 2; Rev 13; cp. Mt 24:15-31, 1 Thess 4:13-17). Because we know to expect this evil man, it makes sense to see him foretold in our passage here—this is why Jesus explicitly references Daniel 9:27 (in Mt 24:15) and tells us to pay close attention to this very prophecy!

As I mentioned, some bible teachers object that “the prince/leader” in Daniel 9:26 is clearly Titus, so it cannot be the antichrist.[9] True, the most obvious historical referent is the Roman general Titus Vespasianus in 70 A.D., but it’s reasonable to believe he just foreshadows the true evil kingdom that will come in the last days. The prophecy of the crazed, fearsome beast in Daniel 7 suggests the fourth great pagan kingdom in God’s timetable, that of “Rome,” will exist in three phases.[10]

  • Phase 1: The old Roman Empire under whose jurisdiction Jesus and Pontius Pilate lived (Dan 7:23).
  • Phase 2: Sometime after Jesus’ day, a splintered remnant that has divided into various pieces (the “10 horns” of the scary fourth beast, Dan 7:23-24).
  • Phase 3: A powerful king who will arise from among the splintered bits of Phase 2 (Dan 7:24-26).

It is this third phase which the antichrist represents. Jesus himself, in Matthew 24:15-28, seems to shade two calamitous events—the destruction of the city and temple in 70 A.D. and the antichrist’s reign of terror during the last days—together in the telling. Trustworthy bible scholars and teachers of every stripe recognize this—just look at any study bible you have lying about and see for yourself! Just as David’s life and standing is a shadowy reflection that points to Jesus, so too does Titus point to the antichrist in this sense.

If true, then (a) Titus does not exhaust the meaning of “the prince/leader who is to come” at Daniel 9:26, and (b) antichrist is just as much a leader of “Rome” as Titus—he just operates in a different phase of that pagan kingdom.

We tackle the remaining two questions about Daniel 9:27 in our next (and final) article.

[1] Andrew Willett, Hexapla in Danielem (Cambridge: Legge, 1622),264-360.

[2] This is John Gill’s argument (Exposition of the Old Testament, 6:346-47), and that of Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 6 vols. (reprint; New York: Revell, n.d.), 1094-95.

[3] Albert Barnes, “Daniel,” in Barnes’ Notes, vol. 7 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 182.

[4] “Ultimately, the question facing every expositor is what interpretation gives the most natural and intelligent exposition of the text” (John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971; reprint, 1989), 234).

[5] Barnes, “Daniel,” 183. In desperation, Barnes suggests this last “seven” consists of (a) Jesus’ ≈ 3.5-year ministry, and (b) the apostle’s ministry of “about” 3.5 years (183-85). This is absurd. Does this mean that the new covenant ended 3.5 years after Jesus’ death!?

[6] Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, 6:346 (emphasis added). I admit that Gill disagrees with my larger position, but everyone disagrees with everyone about how to interpret Daniel!

[7] Edward Young argues mightily that the true antecedent is not the prince but the people, because they are foremost in Gabriel’s mind as he relates the prophecy. This is not taken seriously by any commentator I’ve read, but it is the best attempt I’ve seen to evade the obvious in this passage and it is rhetorically persuasive.

[8] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.25.

[9] Young, Daniel, 208-13. His is the best argument of which I’m aware for the “he = Christ” perspective in Daniel 9:27.

[10] Young, Daniel, 147-50. He is excellent, here.

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 2)

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 2)

In the first article, we set out to study what Jesus meant at John 14:1-3. Some Christians believe this passage speaks about the pre-tribulational rapture of the church to heaven, clearing the way for the tribulation here on earth. Is that right?

We began by looking at the context around Jesus’ words, which is His long goodbye talk at John 13:33 to 16:33. In this article, we’ll finish up the context, lay out four possible ways to understand Jesus’ words at John 14:1-3, then propose a “grading scale” to weigh these options. The next two articles in this series will examine these four positions in detail.

See the other articles in the “rapture series” here. See this entire article on “John 14:1-3 and the Rapture” as a single PDF here.

1c: Convo on Phillip’s implicit question (vv. 14:8-21)

Philip, perplexed, asks to see the Father. Jesus explains that Father and Son (and Spirit) mutually indwell one another in a mysterious way (Jn 14:10-11). This interwoven nature helps explain why the one God can eternally exist as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.[1] This is why to “see” Jesus is to “see” the Father—to be with Jesus by means of trusting His Good News is to be “in God’s presence.”

But still—Jesus is physically leaving! He must leave so He can wage His divine campaign against the kingdom of darkness from on high through us (Jn 14:12).[2] Where does this leave us, then?

Well, Jesus promises to not leave us as orphans. The Father will send “another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth,” (Jn 14:16-17). Unlike those outside God’s family, we will know this Spirit because He’ll reside with us and be inside us (Jn 14:17).[3] And so He won’t abandon us as orphans: “I will come to you” (Jn 14:18). On that day—that is, the day when the Advocate comes to dwell inside us—we will participate God’s inner life because we’ll be part of this mutual indwelling. “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you,” (Jn 14:20).

1d: Convo on Judas (not Iscariot’s) question (vv. 14:22-31)

When the Spirit takes residence inside us, Father and Son come along with Him: “we will come to them and make our home with them,” (Jn 14:23).

And yet, despite all this talk about being both absent and somehow “with us” at the same time, the fact is that Jesus is physically leaving us. Sure, the Spirit will be His proxy in the interim and, as we’ve seen, Father and Son will also tag along—but there is no physical, tangible “God with us” after the ascension.

Jesus realizes this will be a problem, because He returns to the theme and says it’s best that He leaves (Jn 14:28). If they love Him (and, by extension, love the victory over sin and Satan that His ministry is all about), then they should be glad that He’s headed back to the Father’s throne room. The scriptures “show” us the three Persons who comprise the One God by highlighting the “distinct and harmonious offices in the great work of redemption”[4] that each performs. In this case, Jesus casts a spotlight on the Father’s role in planning this divine rescue plan: “the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). That is, as our vicarious surrogate and representative, Jesus is carrying out the Father’s plan—and that plan has Him leaving here and returning to the Father’s personal presence. By telling them about His departure He’s simply preparing them for this physical separation beforehand, so they’ll trust Him when it happens (Jn 14:29).

1e: Convo about the divine helper (vv. 15:26 to 16:15)

Jesus casts the Spirit’s role, and He and the Father’s spiritual presence within us via the Spirit, as an aid for evangelism (Jn 15:26-27). They must understand this, or else they might fall away from the faith (Jn 16:1). Bad times are coming, and true believers must stick with Him—this is Jesus’ point throughout John 15 (see esp. Jn 15:9-10). “I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them,” (Jn 16:4).

Jesus has carefully meted out more information over time. He didn’t mention His long absence and the community’s mission beforehand “because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me,” (Jn 16:4-5). This is a physical departure for another place, returning to His words at John 14:2-4.

Though both Phillip and Thomas have asked Jesus where He’s going (Jn 13:36, 14:5), Jesus knows their questions are actually grief-stricken exclamations borne of shock (Jn 16:5-6). I must go, Jesus explains, because if I don’t, then the Advocate won’t arrive and carry out His mission through you all (Jn 16:7-11). But, when the Spirit arrives, He’ll guide believers into all truth—i.e., they’ll understand it all soon enough (Jn 16:13-14).

“Jesus went on to say, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’” (Jn 16:16). His meaning is unclear, but it’s best to see Jesus as speaking about the resurrection on Easter morning and the 40 days of instruction which follow.[5]

1f: Convo about the resurrection reunion (vv. 16:16-28)

The disciples are once again confused—the concept of Jesus’ death and resurrection makes no sense to them (Jn 16:17-18).

Jesus ignores their questions about the “why” and “how” of His departure, and instead reassures them that “it’ll be worth it all” when He returns (Jn 16:20-23). Their joy at beholding Jesus’ glorified and resurrected person, coupled with the power of the Holy Spirit poured out from on high at Pentecost, will turbo-charge their zeal to take His Good News to Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Therefore, their joy will be irrepressible and complete (Jn 16:22, 24).

During the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension, Jesus will no longer speak to them figuratively— “I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father,” (Jn 16:25). Indeed, Luke tells us: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God,” (Acts 1:3).

Jesus then ends His long farewell address by pivoting back to where the discussion began—to His long-term departure, not simply the interval between Good Friday and Easter morning: “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father,” (Jn 16:28).

Throughout the farewell address, Jesus refers to His departure and return in at least three different contexts; (a) His physical departure to the Father’s presence and eventual physical return, (b) His physical departure to the Father and His spiritual return via the Holy Spirit, and (c) His physical departure by death and His physical return on Easter morning. He dips in and out of these contexts repeatedly; first one, then the other, then still another. This means the reader cannot assume an “obvious” reading of John 14:2-4, but must follow the train of Jesus’ thought throughout the entire farewell address to make a reliable conclusion.

2: What does Jesus mean at John 14:1-3?

This much is clear:

  • Jesus speaks of a physical departure to a place where the disciples cannot follow (Jn 13:33). He identifies His destination as “to the One who sent me,” (Jn 7:33; cp. “just as I told the Jews” at Jn 13:33). The One who sent Him was God (Jn 1:14, 18).
  • Peter asks why they cannot follow Jesus to this destination (Jn 13:36-37).
  • Jesus responds by asking the disciples to trust Him (Jn 14:1). The discussion still centers on Jesus’ physical departure.
  • His destination is the Father’s personal presence, which he figuratively refers to as “my Father’s house.” Assuming the likeness of a kindly innkeeper, Jesus says He’s headed off to prepare “rooms” for all believers and will one day return to bring Christians to His Father’s “house.”

It seems there are four possible options for understanding John 14:2-3, and they each rely on different definitions of “my Father’s house.”

Table 1

2a: A grade scale for bible study

I suggest the following grading scale to evaluate the strength of a passage’s teaching:[6]

  • Grade A: Explicit teaching. The passage either (a) makes some direct statement in proper context, or (b) directly teaches on the specific issue (e.g., justification by faith, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus as the only way of salvation, the virgin birth, etc.). Hold closely and aggressively to doctrines with Grade A support.
  • Grade B: Implicit teaching. Though there may not be a specific statement in context, or a direct passage about the subject using the summary terms the Church has developed over time, there is only one responsible conclusion (e.g., doctrine of the Trinity, two-nature Christology, baptism of professing believers only). Hold closely and aggressively to doctrines with Grade B support.
  • Grade C: A principal or logical conclusion—an inference. The issue is the application of a general principle from scripture in context, and/or a logical conclusion or inference from the data in proper context. “Because A, then it makes sense that B, and so we have C.” It isn’t the only conclusion possible, but it is a reasonable one (e.g., presence of apostolic sign gifts today, the regulative principle of worship, music styles in worship). Agree to disagree on doctrines with Grade C support, because the evidence is not conclusive for one position or the other.
  • Grade D: A guess or speculation. No explicit or implicit scriptural support, evidence falls short of a persuasive conclusion from the data, and it’s built on shaky foundations—“because A, then it makes sense that B, and therefore it could mean C, and so D.” It’s an educated guess based on circumstantial evidence (e.g., who wrote the Book of Hebrews). Hold very loosely to issues with Grade D support—never force your guess on another believer.
  • Grade E: Poor or non-existent support. No explicit or implicit evidence, no logical conclusion or inference from data, and cannot be taken seriously even as a guess. The passage doesn’t support the issue at hand. Ditch passages with Grade E support.

In the next article, we’ll look at Option 1 from the table, above.

[1] This is called “perichoresis,” which Erickson helpfully defines as: “Indwelling or mutual interpenetration. An ancient teaching that understands the Trinity as consisting of three persons, so closely bound together that the life of each flows through each of the others,” (Concise Dictionary, s.v., “perichoresis,” p. 152).

[2] Calvin, John, p. 2:90. Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John, in American Commentary (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 286.

“A very wonderful promise! But has it been fulfilled? We think it has. For if we look at the wonders of the Day of Pentecost, together with the events that followed in the rapid spread of the gospel during the apostolic age, it does not seem extravagant to regard them as greater than any which took place during the ministry of Christ. And if we compare the spiritual results of the three most fruitful years of the ministry of Paul, of Luther, of Whitefield, or of Spurgeon, with the spiritual results of Christ’s preaching and miracles for three years, we shall not deem his promise vain. And if it be urged against the latter instances that miracles are wanting, it may be replied that supernatural works in the realm of spirit are superior, rather than inferior, to those in the world of sense—that to raise a soul from death unto life is really a greater act than to raise a dead body from the grave.”

[3] Gk: ὅτι παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

[4] 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Article II. 

[5] This is Chrysostom’s interpretation and it’s followed by many modern interpreters (“Homily LXXIX,” in NPNF1, vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. G. T. Stupart (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), p. 291).

There are two other reasonable options to understand Jn 16:16f.

First is that Jesus speaking of the coming of the Spirit—they will soon not see Him any longer, but nevertheless they will “see” Him by the illumination of the Spirit. This hinges on the two different words for “see” which John uses, and the conclusion that if John were speaking of them physically “seeing” Jesus soon, he would have used the same word for “sight” in the sentence. But he didn’t. So, there must be some distinction between the two words, and the latter can be interpreted as a mental or spiritual perception (BDAG, s.v., sense A.4). John Calvin is an eloquent champion for this view (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (reprint; Bellingham: Logos, 2010), p. 147). More recently, Edward Klink advances this proposal (John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016; Kindle ed.), loc. 18998f). This interpretation is plausible but seems too cute by half. Jesus’ insistence on them seeing Him again and being filled with joy (Jn 16:20f) seem to indicate something more than spiritual enlightenment.

A second option is that Jesus is speaking of His second coming. But His audience never saw the second coming. It seems hollow if Jesus assured them all that they’d soon see Him, but He really meant that the Christians alive at His second coming would see Him.

[6] I am indebted to Paul Henebury’s “Rules of Affinity” as the inspiration for this grading scale. I did not use his grading scale or his descriptions, but I did take his general concept.

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 1)

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 1)

Many American Christians have been raised in a church culture that stresses that Jesus will return to “rapture” or snatch away “the church” before the Great Tribulation. They believe “the church” is a different people than ethnic Israel, with a complementary but distinct future.[1] Because this great tribulation is “a time of trouble for Jacob” (Jer 30:7), it is not for “the church.” Therefore, the rapture is the point where “the church” slips out the door just before this tribulation begins.

They believe this rapture will involve (a) resurrection of all believers who died since Pentecost, and (b) a simultaneous snatching away of all believers still alive, all to (c) meet the Lord in the air for transport to heaven while tribulation rages here. Later, Jesus will return from heaven with “the church” to end this great tribulation—this is the second coming.

This is part of a “pre-tribulational” (i.e., Jesus will return before the tribulation), and “premillennial” (i.e., Jesus will establish His kingdom to trigger the millennium) framework called dispensationalism.

Many of these Christians point to John 14:1-3 as proof of the rapture of “the church.” This article will consider what Jesus says at John 14:1-3. First, we’ll examine the entire context of Jesus’ farewell talk at Jn 13:33 to 16:33. Second, we’ll examine four common interpretations about what Jesus said at Jn 14:1-3. Third, we’ll propose a solution.

See the other articles in the “rapture series” here. See this entire article on “John 14:1-3 and the Rapture” as a single PDF here.

1: The long convo—Jesus says goodbye

It’s silly to interpret something without context. You watch a video clip of something that looks terrible, but the whole clip shows it in it’s true light. It’s the same with the bible. So, to get what Jesus says at John 14:1-3, we must consider everything He says during a very long talk after the last supper.

Here’s the outline—and this is “kind of a big deal” because Jesus constantly talks about different ways in which He’ll “come back” and reunite them to the Father. Skip this if you want, but you might want to refer to it later.

  • Jn 13:33-35: Jesus’ announcement about His physical departure, and therefore the necessity of brotherly love as the mark of the true Christian community
    • Jn 13:36 – 14:4: Dialogue on Peter’s question.
      • Believers must trust Jesus. He will physically return to the Father’s personal presence, and eventually bring believers into His Father’s presence, too. Yet, they already know “the way”!
    • Jn 14:5-7: Dialogue on Thomas’ question.
      • Believers are, in a real sense, in the Father’s presence right now by means of trusting in Jesus’ Good News—He is “the way” to the Father’s “house.”
    • Jn 14:8-21: Dialogue on Philip’s implicit question.
      • Jesus and the Father mutually indwell one another, and this is why when you “see” one you “see” the other. Jesus must return to the Father’s presence to direct His campaign against the kingdom of darkness from on high. Meanwhile, He sends believers the Holy Spirit so we aren’t left as orphans. Jesus will reveal Himself to (i.e., be “seen” by) those who love the Father, by means of the Spirit.
    • Jn 14:22-31: Dialogue on Judas (not Iscariot’s) question
      • Jesus will only show Himself to those who love Him, which means those who obey His teaching. The Spirit, through whom Jesus is “with us,” brings believers peace and teaches them. Jesus warns the disciples about all this beforehand, so they’re prepared for the day.
  • Jn 15-16: Jesus and the disciples “walk and talk” on the streets of Jerusalem
    • Jn 15:1-25: Be sure to stick with Jesus.
      • Fruit is the mark of a true Jesus follower, and the defining fruit is brotherly love.
    • Jn 15:26 – 16:15: The work of the Spirit in the New Covenant.
      • Jesus must physically return to the Father and “pass the baton” (as it were) to the Spirit. He will be their Advocate and teacher, and so they’ll be able to endure.
    • Jn 16:16-28: Jesus on His resurrection reunion.
      • The disciples will see Him “after a little while,” (Jn 16:16) and then their grief will turn to joy (Jn 16:20, 22). At that time, Jesus will speak plainly to them about the Father (Jn 16:25).
    • Jn 16:29-33: Farewell address ends

1a: The mic drop—Jesus says goodbye (vv. 13:33-35)

Our passage opens after Judas has bolted from the Last Supper and fled into the night. He’s on his way to betray Jesus to the Jewish authorities (Jn 13:27-30).

Jesus, perhaps taking a deep breath as He sees the walls closing in on Him, explains that both He and God will be “glorified” by what’s about to happen. It’s so certain that Jesus speaks as if His arrest, torture, and execution are already a done deal: “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him,” (Jn 13:31). The word “glorify” here is a churchy term, and it means to be held in honor, or clothed in splendor.[2] Basically, Jesus will be honored triumphantly,[3] and so too will God.

Jesus then explains: “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come,” (Jn 13:33).

Where is Jesus going? Clearly, it’s back to the Father’s side in heaven (cp. Jn 17:1ff). Now, heaven is not a physical location “up there” in the clouds. Satellites go “up there.” Manned space missions go “up there.” Heaven is not in outer space—it’s best understood as a different dimension where God dwells.[4] It’s the place from which Jesus came (Jn 3:13; 17:1f) and to which He returned at His ascension: “he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence,” (Heb 9:24). It’s the place where God dwells (“Our Father in heaven …” Mt 6:4). It’s the place where believer’s inheritances are kept for them (1 Pet 1:4-5; cp. Mt 6:20). Heaven is God’s throne room (Mt 5:34). Perhaps, then, we should see “the kingdom of heaven” as meaning something like “the kingdom of God’s presence” which has “come near” in Jesus (Mk 1:15)—His reign.

Because heaven in our context is God’s holy presence, then we should remember that God is not a stationary rock—He moves. In fact, the Christian story ends with this declaration: “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them,” (Rev 21:3). The story moves from (a) crude representations of God’s throne room under the figures of the tabernacle (Ex 25:9), to (b) the New Testament explanation that these figures taught us in advance about Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 9:1 – 10:18), and finally (c) to Father and Son sharing a throne here on earth, in a new creation (Rev 21:1 – 22:5).

The Apostle John sees “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,” (Rev 22:12). The celestial city represents the pure community of God’s presence just as Babylon is the community of evil and wickedness (Rev 17-18), and one day it will no longer be just “the Jerusalem that is above” (Gal 4:26)—it will be here. No longer will our citizenship in “Mount Zion … the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22) be an abstraction that we can’t see and touch—it will be here.

More than a place, this “heaven” here on earth is also a state of being. There are no tears, no pain, no sorrow, no sin— “nothing impure will ever enter it … no longer will there be any curse,” (Rev 21:27; 22:3). “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” (Rev 21:4). One writer says: “Heaven is the life willed for us originally in creation by God the Father, lived for us by the Son, and finally enabled by the Spirit.”[5] Isaiah speaks of a “new heavens and a new earth” with very physical and earthly descriptions of perfect fellowship in an ideal society (Isa 65:17-25). No old age, no infant mortality, endless crops of plenty, satisfaction from work, blessedness from the Lord, perfect fellowship with Him and each other—it’s all there.

Belinda Carlisle was right— “heaven” will indeed be a place on earth, because heaven is God’s personal presence which brings blessedness and community with Him. This is why the Apostle Peter, casting his mind on promises like these, wrote: “… in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells,” (2 Pet 3:13).

God has long promised to re-create the fellowship and community our first parents ruined (Zech 2:10; Ezek 48:35), and by the end of the story He will have made good on that promise. This means that “heaven” is not static. New York City doesn’t move, nor does London—but “heaven” does, because “heaven” is where the Lord is.

So, what does Jesus mean in John 13:33 when He says: “Where I am going, you cannot come?” He means (a) that He’s soon returning to the Father’s personal presence (“I am coming to you now …” Jn 17:3), and that (b) the disciples cannot yet come with Him. Why not? Because they’re still alive, and so will remain here. To be absent from the physical body is to be physically present with the Lord in that other place (2 Cor 5:8). But, for now, we who are alive must wait.

1b: Convo on Peter’s question (vv. 13:36 to 14:4)

Peter and the others then ignore Jesus’ urgent pleas for them to show love to one another (Jn 13:34-35), and instead press Him about His departure (Jn 13:36-37)—what’s that all about?

Simon Peter asked him, “Lord, where are you going?”

Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.”

Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.”

How could He leave? What’s going on? Where is He going? After an incredulous aside to Peter (Jn 13:38), Jesus murmurs some comforting words: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me,” (Jn 14:1). The word might be better translated as trust (not “believe”), but the point is that Jesus’ departure is not an abandonment.

My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going (John 14:2-4).[6]

This “house” is figurative imagery to express the place where the Father lives—i.e., His personal presence.[7] This is why Jesus referred to the temple, that grand and living object lesson, as “my Father’s house” (Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16)—because the Father lived inside.[8] This is why the Apostle Paul says the Christian community is God’s “house” (1 Cor 3:6; 1 Tim 3:15)—because God’s Spirit dwells in our midst. It’s why the writer of the letter to the Hebrews explained “we are his house,” (Heb 3:6). The temple is God’s “house” (Ps 69:9, cp. Jn 2:17; Lk 19:46).

But “my Father’s house” is not a physical structure anchored to a particular place. God does not live at 777 Eternity Drive. Instead, “my Father’s house” is a figurative reference to God’s personal presence. In the same way, the real throne room in heaven to which Jesus returns is “my Father’s house” because God is there.

We’ve seen that there is no physical house, and there are no real rooms. These are metaphors. Jesus is saying that He won’t abandon them. Adopting the imagery of a friendly innkeeper, Jesus promises that He’s leaving to prepare “rooms” for each one of them in the Father’s personal presence (i.e., “my Father’s house”). And one day Jesus will come back and bring them face to face with God so they can all be there with Him together. In fact,[9] they already know how to get to the Father’s house themselves (Jn 14:4).

We continue looking at Jesus’ farewell talk in the next article.

[1] See Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953),ch. 7. Ryrie’s book should be titled The Basis of the Dispensational Faith, because premillennialism is not necessarily dispensationalism.

C. I. Scofield wrote: “Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, he finds that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny—all is contrast,” (Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (reprint; Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1921), p. 11). Scofield’s student, Lewis S. Chafer, lists 24 contrasts between Israel and the Church (Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), ch. 3)!

[2] See BDAG, s.v., sense 2; LSJ, s.v., sense 2.  

[3] Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “glory (v.1), sense 1,” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4382797103.

[4] See (a) Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), pp. 1125-1133, (b) Alvah Hovey, Biblical Eschatology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1888), pp. 156-160.

[5] Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1992), p. 460.

[6] The Greek here is pretty straightforward. Any mysteries in this verse aren’t hidden here: Gk: ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν εἰ δὲ (emphasis) μή, εἶπον ἂν ὑμῖν ὅτι πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν; καὶ (additive) ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα (purpose + subjunctive) ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ (adjunctive) ὑμεῖς ἦτε (subjunctive = paired with ἵνα) καὶ (emphasis) ὅπου (obj. gen.) [ἐγὼ] ὑπάγω οἴδατε (intensive perfect) τὴν ὁδόν (direct obj.).

“In my Father’s house are many rooms. Surely, if this weren’t true, would I have told you all that I am leaving to prepare a place for you? And, if I am leaving to prepare a place for you all, I will come again and take you along with me, so that you will also be where I am. In fact, you already know the way to the place I am going.”

[7] BDAG, s.v., sense 1b.  

[8] Although God never indwelt the second temple, you get the point.   

[9] The NIV drops the conjunction in the phrase: καὶ ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε τὴν ὁδόν. The conjunction is likely ascensive or perhaps emphatic—the result is the same; the previous thought is focused and further developed.

1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

Many American Christians have questions about something called “the rapture.” These questions are often tied to a particular flavor of premillennialism called “dispensationalism.” According to this framework, “the rapture” means “the idea that Christ will remove the church from the world prior to the great tribulation.”[1] They believe the rapture is before the Great Tribulation, so it is “pre-tribulational.” This teaching relies heavily on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, along with other supporting passages. This article will evaluate whether this passage teaches a pre-tribulational rapture.

Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

Paul begins a new subject at 1 Thessalonians 4:13.[2] Maybe the church had written to Paul with this question, or maybe Timothy had relayed it in person (1 Thess 3:6f). Regardless, Paul doesn’t want the church in Thessalonica to be upset and grieve, as if they had no hope.

Why are they upset? We don’t know how the issue came up, but wrong ideas seem to taken root in the congregation about Jesus’ return. This isn’t surprising, because Paul didn’t spend much time with them before he was run out of town (Acts 17:1-9).

What is this hope that ought to stop them from grieving? Paul explains:

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Paul explains[3] that, because Jesus has died and rose again, in the same way[4] God will bring with Jesus those who have died (“fallen asleep”) while in union with Him. So, anyone who believes that Jesus is the hinge upon which God’s single plan to rescue us and this world turns—that is, any believer—will be resurrected and be with Jesus forever. This means there is hope, whether the believer is alive or dead.

According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:15).

In fact, the believers who are alive when Jesus returns will not be “first in line” to see Him. The dead believers will not be left behind. What does this mean? Paul explains …[5]

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

The reason dead Christians won’t miss anything is because Jesus Himself will come from heaven and resurrect “the dead in Christ” first. Jesus will come very publicly, very loudly—accompanied with both a piercing battle cry[6] and the sound of a blasting trumpet. So, the dead believers will be resurrected first—but what about the believers who are still alive when Christ returns?

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).[7]

After the dead in Christ are resurrected in the same way Jesus was (i.e., miraculously), those who are still alive will be caught up, snatched, or suddenly seized away[8] into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air as He returns. The word Paul uses, which the NIV translates as “meet,” suggests an advance reception for an arriving dignitary.[9] This happens right after the resurrection of the dead believers, so that together they will meet Jesus in the air as one group. And so, Paul concludes, in this way all believers will be with the Lord for all time.

The point is that dead believers have reason to hope. They will miss nothing. So, when Paul makes his conclusion at the end of v.17, he’s drawing those strands together. He’s answering a question about whether the dead in Christ will miss out when Jesus returns. The answer is no, both dead and living believers will meet the Lord together in the air. In this manner, all believers will be with Jesus forever.

Therefore encourage one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

So, does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 teach that the Lord will remove the church from the earth before the Great Tribulation? No, it does not. The passage isn’t about the rapture at all. It’s about how those who are in relationship with Jesus, whether alive or dead, always have hope that they’ll be with Him forever when He returns. To be sure, the passage contains the rapture, but that isn’t the same thing as being about the rapture.

Paul doesn’t directly answer the question about rapture timing. He doesn’t address that issue at all. He simply says that, when Jesus returns, both dead and living believers will meet Him in the air as one group and be with the Lord forever.

  • Two-stage return for Jesus. Does the group (a) then ascend back to heaven with Jesus, (b) clearing the way for the Great Tribulation on the people of Israel, and then (c) return to earth with Jesus afterwards?
  • Single return for Jesus. Or does the group simply fall in behind Jesus in the air as He continues His return—in which case this meeting is like a divine triumphal entry in which they met Him “half way”?

You must bring in other passages to make the case for a pre-tribulational rapture, which sees a two-stage return for Jesus. I’ll examine the most common support passages in follow-up articles. But the evidence in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 does not explicitly support any particular timing for the rapture. The closest Paul comes is the word he uses for this “meeting” with the Lord in the air (v. 17), which suggests a public welcome for Christ when He returns to His holy city.[10] In other words, there is a hint of support here for a single return for Jesus.

[1] Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, revised ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), s.v. “Rapture, Pretribulational view of the,” p. 167.

[2] The NIV omits the transitional conjunction δὲ.

[3] The conjunction at the beginning of v.14 is explanatory (γὰρ).

[4] The adverb of manner at v. 14b (οὕτως) explains that our dying and rising again will happen in the same way as Jesus.’

[5] The conjunction at the beginning of v.17 (ὅτι) is explanatory.

[6] BDAG, s.v., “κέλευσμα,” p. 538; LSJ, s.v., p. 936.

[7] Gk: ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες (nom. apposition) οἱ περιλειπόμενοι (nom. apposition) ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα (paired with ἡμεῖς) ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ (conclusion) οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

“And then we—those who are alive and are still here—will be snatched away together with them into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so, in this way we’ll be with the Lord for all time.”

[8] BDAG, s.v., “ἁρπάζω,” sense 2, p. 134; LSJ, s.v., sense 2, p. 246.

[9] See (a) BDAG, s.v. “ἀπάντησιν,” p. 97, (b) LSJ, s.v., (c) Erik Peterson, TDNT, s.v., p. 1.380–381. See also the context of the usage at Mt 25:6 and Acts 28:15.

[10] “According to 1 Th. 4:17, at the second coming of the Lord, there will be a rapture εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα. The word ἀπάντησις (also ὑπάντησις, DG) is to be understood as a tech. term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly, when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the ἀήρ, acclaiming Him as κύριος,” (Peterson, TDNT, s.v. “ἀπάντησις,”p. 1:380-381).