Rapture Terminology

The "Skeleton in the Closet" of Pretribulationism

By Tim Warner © www.4windsfellowships.net

“Technical terms” are nouns or descriptive noun phrases that are understood by the
intended audience to refer to specific things even without explanation within the
context. For example, the word "rapture" in modern prophetic speech is understood to
refer to the coming of Christ for His Church. We do not normally need to refer to the
context in which the word "rapture" might be found in modern Christian books to find
out what "rapture" means. We simply assume the writer was referring to the coming of
Christ for His Church. The word "tribulation" is another word that has taken on a
technical meaning in modern Evangelical jargon. However, in the Bible, "tribulation"
alone is not a technical term, because it is frequently used of troubles in general and not
merely THE "tribulation." When the Bible means to indicate THE "tribulation," the
words "great tribulation" are used (cf. Rev. 7:14).

In English, we use the definite article (the) sometimes to distinguish between a technical
term and a non technical term. My usage of the word "tribulation" above demonstrates
this. By my adding "THE" to tribulation, we understand a distinction between general
"tribulation" and a specific "tribulation" known to us. However, this is not always the
case in Greek.

What can make a term a technical term is it's repeated (or frequent) reference to the
same thing or event in Scripture. Also, a term that is not clearly explained in the context
shows that the writer assumed his readers knew what it meant. There was therefore
common knowledge of technical terms between writer and reader. Such terms are not
hard to spot and identify. We can discern technical terms from Scripture by their LACK
of explanations within the context (the writer ASSUMES that the hearer or reader
would understand the term). Secondly, by the EXCLUSIVE (or nearly exclusive) usage
of the term in reference to a same event.

We have excluded the word "tribulation" from being a technical term in Scripture
because it is often used of tribulations in general, without referring to THE "tribulation."
Therefore, we need to review the CONTEXT where this word is found in order to
decide if it is referring to THE "tribulation" or to some other kind of "tribulation."
Because of this, we cannot ASSUME that when "tribulation" alone is used it means THE
"tribulation." We therefore cannot rightly use the following verses to prove that the
rapture is posttribulational, as some have mistakenly done.
 John 16:33
33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you
will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

Acts 14:22
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and
saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God."

However, the over-all usage of technical terms in contexts dealing with the second
coming weigh heavily in favor of the posttribulation position (and against all other
rapture views including pre-wrath). These terms were understood by the first century
believers to refer to a particular coming of the Lord without explanations in the context
of being pre- or post-tribulational. Terms like, The Day of the Lord, The Day of Christ, The
Day of Jesus Christ, The Day of the Lord Jesus, The Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Day of
God, were all understood without any clarification. These terms were used by Paul and
others with the full expectation that their readers knew that they referred to a specific
single event. For example:

Phil 1:10
10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and
without offense till the day of Christ.

Phil 2:16
16 holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not
run in vain or labored in vain.

Paul assumed his readers knew what "day" he was speaking about. He did not explain
in either verse whether this day was the coming of Christ BEFORE or AFTER the
tribulation. He assumed his readers knew that the "Day of Christ" was the day for
which they were watching and waiting. Therefore, it is right to associate it with the
rapture (but not necessarily a pretribulation rapture). However, in 2 Thess. 2:1-3, Paul
indicated that the Antichrist must come BEFORE the "Day of Christ." So, IF "Day of
Christ" was a technical term, it is a POSTTRIBULATIONAL technical term, and the
above verses must therefore refer to a rapture that is posttribulational.

Paul used other variations on the name of Christ, when referring to His "Day," as the
future time for which believers watch and wait.
 1 Cor 1:8
8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 1:14
14 (as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours,
in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Phil 1:6
6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will
complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

All of these terms are given without explanation. Logically, all refer to the same "day,"
because in each case this "day" seems to be the day on which believers had placed their
hope, i.e., Christ's coming for His Church.

Likewise, the term "Day of the Lord" is simply another variation on the name of Christ.
It is His day (Luke 17:24). The term is used in several contexts, each time the writer
expected his readers to understand the specific day to which he referred without giving
any explanation (pre- or post-tribulational). This is very problematic for
pretribulationists. If the Apostles were pretribulationists (expecting two future comings
of Christ), they would need to specify to their hearers or readers whether they were
referring to a pre- or post-tribulational coming of Christ. Also, the term "Day of the
Lord" was used repeatedly in the Old Testament in reference to Christ's
posttribulational coming to set up His Kingdom (see: Isa. 13:1-13, Joel 3:9-17, Zech. 14:1-
6). The Day of the Lord is unquestionably AFTER the tribulation (cf. Matt. 24:29 & Acts
2:20). Yet, in 1 Thess. 5:1,2, Paul used the term 'Day of the Lord' for the rapture.

Pretribulationists in the past (not so much anymore) tried to draw a distinction between
the "Day of Christ" (pretribulation rapture) and the "Day of the Lord" (posttribulation
coming). However, as pointed out above, this distinction fails because we find the term
"Day of Christ" placed AFTER the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:1-3) and the term "Day of the
Lord" referring to the day for which Christians watch (1 Thess. 5:1,2). Either the day for
which Christians are watching is the posttribulation event, or else these are not
technical terms. But, if they are not, then the passages are utterly confusing, because the
writer ASSUMED that his audience KNEW which day he meant. The pretribulationist is
forced to the awkward conclusion that Paul sometimes used the terms "Day of Christ"
and "Day of the Lord" indiscriminately to refer to BOTH the (alleged) pretribulation
rapture and posttribulation coming, and expected his audience to decipher which he
meant with no clues whatever in the context!
The Elusive Search for a Biblical Pretribulation Rapture Technical Term
There is a conspicuous lack of a single technical term in the Bible for a pretribulation
rapture (as distinct from the second coming). Pretribulationists have frantically
searched for one, but always come up short. Having failed the "Day of Christ/Day of the
Lord" distinction, many have tried to draw a distinction between the "rapture" and
"revelation" of Christ. Yet, when we test ANY kind of alleged technical term in
Scripture, the Bible fails to produce a single consistent technical term that could be
applied to a pretribulation rapture that is not clearly applied to the posttribulation
coming. Why? The obvious answer is the rapture is not distinct from the second
coming, but is part of the same event! And the New Testament writers had no need to
distinguish between two separate comings.

The modern word "rapture" is the word most often used as a technical term today by
pretribulationists. Their uniform use of this term demonstrates the absolute necessity of
having SOME kind of technical term for the alleged pretribulation rapture if it is indeed
a distinct event. But, this word is NOT a technical term in the Bible. The word "rapture"
is from the Latin text, and is found in the following verse.

1 Thess 4:17
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up [Greek - harpazo, Latin - rapiemur]
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with
the Lord.

However, this term CANNOT be taken as a technical term for an alleged pretribulation
rapture because:

 it is a verb and not a noun in Scripture

 it is usually used of other things in Scripture besides the catching up of believers
at Christ's coming (cf. Matt. 11:12, Matt. 12:29, Matt. 13:19, John 6:15, John
10:12,28,29, Acts 8:39, Acts 23:10, 2 Cor. 12:2,4, Jude 1:23, Rev. 12:5). Only once is
it used in connection with Christ's coming.

Other proposed technical terms also fail to refer exclusively to a supposed

pretribulational event, but are also used in clearly posttribulation contexts.

As pointed out already, pretribulationists have tried to distinguish between "rapture"

and "revelation." The word "rapture" fails the test for the above reasons. But, how does
the term "revelation" stack up as being exclusively posttribulational in order to
distinguish the posttribulation coming from an alleged pretribulation coming)? If the
pretribulation theory were true, we would expect that the term "revelation" would
ONLY be used of the posttribulation event (as opposed to the alleged pretribulation
rapture), and NEVER of the day Christians anticipate. Yet, this is not the case.

There are three main Greek nouns used in Scripture for the coming of Christ.

1. parousia (Strong's #3952) simply means "coming" or physical "presence."

2. epiphaneia (Strong's #2015) means "appearing" or "brightness" with emphasis
on His glory.
3. apokalupsis (Strong's #602) means "revelation" or "unveiling."

All of these are nouns used as technical terms in Scripture, while assuming that the
reader understands the coming to which the words refer. However, the Scriptures use
each of these terms for BOTH the Christians' hope AND the posttribulation event. The
obvious conclusion is they are the same event.

Jesus' COMING (Parousia) as our hope: 1 Cor. 15:23, 1 Thess. 2:19, 1 Thess. 4:15, 1
Thess. 5:23, 2 Thess. 2:1, James 5:7,8, 2 Pet. 3:4, 1 John 2:28

Jesus' COMING (Parousia) as the posttribulational event: Matt. 24:3,27,39, 1 Thess. 3:13,
2 Thess. 2:8

Jesus' APPEARING (Epiphaneia) as our hope: 1 Tim. 6:14, II Tim. 4:1,8

Jesus' APPEARING (Epiphaneia) as the posttribulational event: 2 Thess. 2:8, Titus 2:13

Jesus' REVELATION (Apokalupsis) as our hope: 1 Cor. 1:7, 1 Pet. 1:7,13, 1 Pet. 4:13

Jesus' REVELATION (Apokalupsis) as the posttribulational event: 2 Thess. 1:7

The bottom line is this: Posttribulationists can rightly claim ALL of the following terms
as technical terms referring to the one and only future coming of Christ: Day of Christ,
Day of Jesus Christ, Day of the Lord Jesus, Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, Day of the Lord,
parousia (His coming), epiphaneia (His appearing), & apokalupsis (His revelation).
Pretribulationists are forced to abandon all of these as technical terms for the supposed
pretribulation rapture (because they are all used at least once in a clear posttribulation
context). Instead they wrongly use a verb (harpazo - "caught up") as a noun (rapture) in
order to INVENT a non-biblical technical term for their alleged pretribulation coming
that is supposed to be distinguished from the second coming (with absolutely no
precedent in Biblical usage). That there is no Biblical term for an alleged pretribulation
coming should give pretribulationists considerable pause that they may be forcing the
Scriptures to fit into their preconceived theory.

Misuse of the Word "Church" as a Technical Term

A second abuse of biblical terminology by pretribulationists is their false and
misleading usage of the word "Church." Their usage is governed by the dispensational
parameters they have erected. To a pretribulationist, the "Church" is strictly a technical
term referring to Christians saved after Pentecost and prior to the tribulation. Believers
prior to Pentecost were not part of the "Church" nor are those saved after the beginning
of the tribulation. Hence, the term "Church age" (an utterly nonbiblical term) has been
coined to delineate the parameters of the pretribulationists' fabricated "Church" on
earth. But, once again, the Scriptures transgress the pretribulationists' jargon. Or more
accurately, pretribulation jargon transgresses the Scriptural precedents and norms of
terminology.

Jesus gave instructions in Matthew 18:17 regarding Church discipline, within a book
that pretribulationists strenuously claim is not related to the "Church," and was written
prior to the Church being established in their dispensational scheme. Stephen, in his
defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:38, referred to the Jewish believers under Moses
as "the Church in the wilderness." In Hebrews 2:12, Paul quoted Psalm 22:22, which
speaks of the Old Testament Jews in worship, as "the Church." In most English Bibles,
this Psalm is translated "congregation" rather than "Church." However, the quote was
from the Greek version of the Old Testament used by the early Church called the
Septuagint (LXX). The New Testament writers frequently quoted this version in their
New Testament books, even many times where it reads differently from the Hebrew
Text we have today. In the LXX, the Greek word for "Church" (ekklesia) is found
repeatedly in the Old Testament, usually referring to the people of God (Israel). Since
the Apostles and the early Christians to whom they wrote used this version, and since
this version uses "Church" (ekklesia) for the Old Testament saints repeatedly, it is not
likely that the early Christians had the same understanding of this term that modern
pretribulationists have fabricated. Once again we find pretribulationists forced to use
artificial technical terminology that is NOT in agreement with biblical precedent and
common usage of the early Church. We don't let cults or Catholics get away with such
subtle shell games with biblical words, why do we permit it by pretribulationists? The
simple fact is, the wrong usage of terminology by pretribulationists, and artificial
distinctions in their jargon, are glaring indicators of a false system that is being forced
on the Scriptures.