White Horse Of The Apocalypse IV

Arguments Of The Antichrist Position

(on Rev. 6:2)

1. Weapons are different and ergo, the persons are different

Reply

We have already responded to this argument and shown it to be no argument at all.

But, if Christ is the rider in 6:2, why is there a bow with the first and a sword with the second (17:11-15)? Consider these reasons:

1) The bow was generally a long range weapon whereas the sword was short range.

2) When going out to meet an enemy in battle, you fired your long range weapons first, and this represents the beginning of the battle.

3) The sword is the final weapon used to kill the enemy when you are face to face with him.

4) The possession of the bow makes perfect sense for the opening first seal (inaugurating the day of judgment or start of the battle) and possession of the sword makes perfect sense for the opening of the seventh seal (completing the day of battle). Those not killed by the arrows of divine justice will be killed by its sword.

2. Crowns are different and ergo, the persons are different

Reply

We have already responded to this argument and shown it to be no argument at all.

But, if Christ is the rider in 6:2, why is there a stephanos crown connected with the first and a diadem crown with the second (17:11-15)? Consider these reasons:

1) The Stephanos crown is the fruit of his first coming and of his victory over sin and Satan via his sacrificial death and payment of the price of redemption, and by his resurrection from the dead.

2) The Diadema crown is the fruit of his second coming and of his final victory over sin and Satan via his judicial administrations at that time.

Observations

Those who argue that the two passages (6:2 & 19:11) cannot be the same rider because of the difference in crown will sometimes argue that "stephanos" is not applicable to Christ. But, that argument is overthrown by considering the new testament scriptures.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9)

The Greek word for "crowned" is "stephanoō" (verb form of the noun). Thus this text says that Christ, after his resurrection and ascension, got his stephanos crown. This text also intimates as much.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev. 3:21)

"Overcame" is from the verb "nikaō" (from when we get our work "Nike" as in the shoe company) and denotes a victor. Further, the same word is used in 6:2 two times by the words "conquer" and "conquering."

Now, in 6:2, the rider is at first view already seen in possession of horse and bow. Unlike the crown, there is no mention of the horse and bow being "given" to the rider. The crown is given to the mounted rider. But, who gave it? And, is the identity of the giver important? What would be the significance for both who gave it and when it was given?

The possibilities for the giver of the crown are: 1) God the Father 2) people of God 3) "crown-bearer" (some kingly servant who keeps the crown while the king has it not on his head).

I believe that the Father rewarded Christ by his overcoming, "crowned him with glory and honor," giving him the victor's or overcomer's crown, after his resurrection. He has had that crown in his possession for now almost two thousand years.

Interesting is the fact that the "crown of thorns" that he wore to the cross was a stephanos crown. Our Lord may well put on that very crown when he begins his first judicial administrations in that great day. But, though he was given that crown two thousand years ago by his Father, that does not mean that he has had it on his head all that time. No doubt it is entrusted to some heavenly crown bearer and keeper. When the Lord Jesus Christ mounts his steed armed with bows and arrows, he will then call for that crown and have it placed upon his head.

If the rider is Antichrist, then we must ask the same questions. Who gave this victor's crown to him? The general masses of the population at that time?

White Horse Of The Apocalypse III

"And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." (Rev. 6: 1-2 kjv)

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (19:11-15)

Points To Consider

1. Should presume that the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6:2 is Christ since

a) he is clearly Christ in Rev. 19:11, and thus presumption goes with the rider being the same (in other words, the "burden of proof" is on those who believe that the rider of 6:2 is Antichrist, a counterfeit Christ).

b) Generally the picture of a white horse rider with weapons and a crown of victory signifies a strong and righteous leader, not a wicked ruler.

2. Thus, presumption is clearly in favor of the view that says the rider is the conquering Lord, Jesus Christ the Nazarene. In order for an interpreter to take the Antichrist view, he must give proof for taking such a view, that is, he must give exegetical, logical, or textual reasons for such an interpretation. And, as we have seen thus far, the "proof" that those of that view make, based upon the differences in descriptions of the two texts (6:2 and 19:11), are baseless and meager.

3. If the differences in type of weapons and crowns between the riders in 6:2 and 19:11 give credence to the opinion that the riders are different, then why, by the same reasoning, can it not be affirmed that the likenesses or similarities prove that they are the same person? Don't you see?

Arguments Of The Antichrist Position

1. Weapons are different and ergo, the persons are different
2. Crowns are different and ergo, the persons are different
3. Red horse rider takes away the peace given by the white horse rider
4. Christ cannot logically be the opener of the seal and the white horse rider
5. Christ cannot logically be both the sender of the rider and the rider

Bow Versus Sword

1. Is God or the Messiah pictured in scripture as an archer shooting arrows?
2. Is the Devil pictured in scripture as an archer shooting arrows?
3. Are there any other weapons the God or Messiah uses?
4. What kind of bow is intended in Rev. 6:2?
5. Is there any significance to the fact that there is no mention of arrows?
6. Is the bow an "empty bow"?
7. If empty, why?
8. If not empty, why?
9. If a long range bow, what is the significance of that, if any?
10. What poisonous arrows will Christ or Antichrist shoot during the Tribulation?
11. If the same rider, why a sword in 19: 11?
12. If the same rider, why begin with bow and end with sword?

Stephanos Versus Diadema

1. Does Christ have one or the other or both?
2. Does Antichrist have one or the other or both?
3. If the same rider, why begin with Stephanos and end with Diadema?
4. Why is the Stephanos "given" to the rider Christ?
5. Who gave the Stephanos to Christ?
6. Who gave the Stephanos to Antichrist?
7. Why was it given to Antichrist?
6. What is the significance of the rider already having horse and bow but being crowned later?
7. If the same rider, why begin with a singular crown and end with Diadems?

In the next posting we will begin to answer these questions.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse II

Question

1. Is the rider on the white horse a person? Or, an impersonal power or agency?

Answer

I think it is a representation of Christ in the beginning of the day of judgment. I will enlarge later.

Question

 2. If the rider on the red, black, and pale horses are not persons (general view), is it reasonable to assume that the first rider is likewise not a person?

Answer

I used to incline to the view that if the red, black, and pale horse riders were not persons, but powers in operation, then likewise it seems reasonable to assume that the white horse rider is not a person but an executive  power. But, now, I see this as really no argument. Why must all the riders be alike in this respect? Why is it not plausible to think that the white horse rider could be a person though the other three are not? In fact, I can think of reasons why the first rider is to be understood as signifying a person while the other three would be mere personifications. But, again, I will enlarge upon this later.

But consider also that the only ones who can legitimately argue "as one (horse) so all," in respect to the person-hood of the four riders, are they who see the white horse as a symbolic personification of the progress of the power of the gospel. But, even among those who hold to this view, many acknowledge that this progress of the gospel in "conquering" sinners (to salvation) is all the same as Christ himself doing the conquering by the preaching of the gospel. So, really, it is only a minority who argue that all four riders must either be all persons or all impersonal agencies. Those holding to the white horse rider being Christ, and those holding to the white horse rider being Antichrist, likewise see this rider as a person and thus it is probably the majority view that sees the white horse rider as a person exercising some power towards earth and its inhabitants.

Question

3. If the white horse rider is a person, is it Christ (one view) or Antichrist (another view)?

Answer

I have struggled over this issue for many years. Sometimes I have leaned towards the view that the white horse rider was Antichrist. Today however I lean strongly towards the view that the rider is Christ. But, I will give the reasons for this view in upcoming posts. Further, there is a sense in which the rider may typify both. But, again, more on that later.

Question

4. What about the arguments of those who favor each of the several views?

Answer

The view that the white horse rider and his conquests represent Christ who, during the time between his two comings, goes forth conquering the hearts of sinners, through gospel preaching, has been held by many Christians over the centuries. The reasons why I reject this view are these:

1) So far as the preaching of the gospel "conquering" hearts we must say that it has conquered relatively few. Most people have since the beginning rejected God and the gospel of his Son. The text implies that the white horse rider continues to conquer with easy success. But this has not been the history of the effects of gospel preaching for the past 2000 years.

2) To make the white horse rider to refer to what has been taking place in gospel preaching (starting after Pentecost) places the opening of the first seal of the scroll prior to that starting point. That is totally out of context. The opening of the seven seals on the scroll (the scroll of redemption) pertains to the "day of the Lord," to the Lord's own second "Apocalypse," to the "day of his wrath," the "day of vengeance," etc. Therefore it is what the Lamb will do in inaugurating that day. The breaking of that first seal is the first planned event in bringing about redemption and judgment, for both sinful man and for "the whole creation." (Rom. 8)

Since therefore the first seal has not yet been broken on the scroll, the coming of this rider has not yet occurred. This fact makes untenable the view that says that the symbol of the white horse represents the success of gospel preaching in the world. The context deals with the second coming and with the work of Christ in judging and redeeming "the quick and the dead."

Question

5. Is it likely or unlikely that the white horse writer of 6:2 is the same as Rev. chpt. 19?

Answer

I think it is far more likely that the riders and horses are the same.

Question

6. If the same rider, why the differences in description?

Answer

We cannot focus only on the differences in the two descriptions, but must focus on the likenesses as well. Both are riding white horses and have crowns and weapons and both are victorious. We cannot logically say that the few differences in descriptions unquestionably means that the two riders are not the same. There are other possible reasons why the two descriptions are different. I will enlarge upon this later in this series. But consider this retort against the argument that affirms that the differences must cause us to believe that they are not the same person:

There are several visions and descriptions of the Lord Jesus Christ in the apocalyptic scenes. Not all these pictures are the same. But, who will argue that this proves that it is not the same person in this case?

Question

7. Do the differences show that the two white horse riders are not the same?

Answer

See above answer. We cannot assume that the differences mean that the two riders cannot be the same person. In upcoming posts we will look closely at the differences and give alternate explanations for why the descriptions are not exactly the same and yet show how nevertheless it is the same rider.

Question

8. Is it significant that the 6:2 rider has a "stephanos" crown rather than a "diadema" as in chpt. 19?

Answer

Yes, it is significant. But of what? Does the difference in the type of crown force us to interpret that to mean that the rider cannot possibly be the same person? That would be illogical. Such a difference does not prove that the riders are different persons. If I was seen in one picture with one hat on my head, and then seen in another picture with a different hat on my head, how would that prove that I was not the same person? Don't you see? But, I will give my thinking on why there is a difference in the kind of crown the rider wears at the opening of the first seal versus what crown he wears at the final opening in upcoming posts.

Question

9. Does this difference in the type of crown prove that the two writers cannot be the same?

Answer

See answer above. It would be a false inference to say that the difference in crowns proves that the riders cannot be the same.

Question

10. Is there significance in the fact that there is no quiver or arrows mentioned in 6:2?

Answer

The seeming absence of arrows, or quiver, or any other article in archery, and the absence of any other weapons, such as spear or sword, cannot be used as proof that the rider of 6:2 is not the same rider of chapter 19. There are other alternative reasons, as with the difference in crown type, why the weapons described in both visions are different. I will enlarge upon this in upcoming posts.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse

"And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." (Rev. 6: 1-2 kjv)

I have been studying on this passage for many years. I have been thinking upon it again. I have read many commentators on the passage. Here are some questions I have after all these years of research into it.

Questions

1. Is the rider on the white horse a person? Or, a power or agency?

2. If the rider on the red, black, and pale horses are not persons (general view), is it reasonable to assume that the first rider is likewise not a person?

3. If the white horse rider is a person, is it Christ (one view) or Antichrist (another view)?

4. What about the arguments of those who favor each of the several views?

5. Is it likely or unlikely that the white horse writer of 6:2 is the same as Rev. chpt. 19?

6. If the same rider, why the differences in description?

7. Do the differences show that the two white horse riders are not the same?

8. Is it significant that the 6:2 rider has a "stephanos" crown rather than a "diadema" as in chpt. 19?

9. Does this difference in the type of crown prove that the two riders cannot be the same?

10. Is there significance in the fact that there is no quiver or arrows mentioned in 6:2?

The Several Views

1. A symbol of the progress of gospel evangelism from the time of the apostles till the 2nd coming.

2. A symbol of a time of global peace, safety, and prosperity.

3. A symbol of the coming of Antichrist who comes as a false Messiah.

4. A symbol of the coming of Christ in some way.

In the next several postings I will give my present interpretation of the passage.

Boyce Vs. Flowers Debate Review

"Dr. Stephen Boyce Vs Dr. Leighton Flowers: Regeneration and the Gospel" (here) is a debate on Calvinism.

Though I am Calvinist, I must say that Calvinist Boyce lost his debate with Flowers on several points in the Calvinist Arminian debate, especially as it relates to the "ordo salutis" and whether regeneration precedes faith.

Flowers is a former Calvinist who now labors to convert Calvinists to Arminian thinking. Flowers calls himself a "provisionist."

Flowers gave several scriptures that plainly put faith prior to obtaining spiritual life. Not a single one of these were challenged by Boyce. In fact, surprisingly, he did not push his "born again before faith" idea further.

Both agreed that man is spiritually dead and impotent. They both agreed that God must initiate the work of turning the sinner around. About the middle of the debate, they got to the point of agreement in affirming that God does some work on the hearts of sinners prior to their regeneration.

This pre-regeneration work, including conviction of sin, is resisted by some so that they do not experience regeneration, while others do not resist, but give in to it, and are regenerated. So, this is where the discussion should have focused. And, the question should have been pursued at this point is this - why did one continue to resist so as not to be saved and another quit resisting so as to be saved? And, at this point I would have raised I Cor. 4: 7 where Paul asks "who makes you to differ from another?"

One of the errors of Flowers was his seeming promotion of the Campbellite "word alone" idea. His idea was that the word is sent to all men, depraved and dead as they are, and this word is "sufficient" to counteract the effects of the fall and original sin, so that they are able thereby to overcome natural inability. This was the view of Wesley. It comes under the umbrella heading of "prevenient grace."

I would have questioned Flowers in regard to whether God has given a chance of salvation to those who have never heard about the one true God and about the gospel. I would have questioned him about whether God gives to all an equal chance to be saved. I would also have questioned him about the "word alone" view that he seemed to be promoting.

Again, it was a good debate. Boyce did not seem to know his subject that well. Flowers did a good job defending his view, though he should have been challenged on several issues. Both men were very courteous of each other and this is the kind of discussion we need in the Christian brotherhood.

The Body vs. The Member

Which is more important in a polis, or political state? The individual or the state?

In socialist, communist, and other such systems, the state is more important. Each individual or citizen in the state is a member of the political or governmental body, and the body whole is more important than any one member. But, this principle seems to be applicable to other social groups, such as family and church. The good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual.

Some say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." It is the principle of Utilitarianism, where "each individual should act to serve the greatest good for the greatest number." It is also in keeping with the words "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (a slogan of Karl Marx).

In American and Western democracy, on the contrary, it is the individual who was more important. The state existed to serve the individual, not the individual to serve the state. One is reminded of the words of President John Kennedy who said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." 

People should serve others in their communities. This is a bible principle. But, communities also should help the individual. It is to be, ideally, a mutual reciprocal affair. However, when governmental leaders put too much importance on "the state," on the body politic, while lessening the importance of the individual, they have "crossed the line." This is also true with other bodies, or social organizations, such as church and family.

Too many churches have put too much importance on "the body" and forced individual members, "for the good of the church," to not teach or say anything against the traditions of the church.

Yes, the individual Christian should serve the entire body of believers, especially in local congregations, but those very assemblies exist for the good of the individual members. That is lost in hierarchical ecclesiastical structures. The church has best prospered when assemblies kept their membership to smaller groups (subdividing to form smaller churches). The best Christian fellowship and growth occurs best in small group study and discussion. This is often lacking in mega churches.

Are Anti Missionaries Saved?

Said Spurgeon:

“Every Christian here is either a missionary or an impostor. Recollect that you are either trying to spread abroad the kingdom of Christ, or else you do not love him at all. It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus, and a totally silent tongue about him. Of course I do not mean, by that, that those who use the pen for Christ are silent; they are not. And those who help others to use the tongue, or spread that which others have written, are doing their part well; but I mean this,—that man who says, ‘I believe in Jesus,’ but does not think enough of Jesus ever to tell another about him, by mouth, or pen, or tract, is an impostor.”

C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 54 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1908), 476–477.

"Do you want to go to heaven alone? I fear you will never go there. Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that. What is the most natural plan to use for the salvation of others but to bear your own personal testimony?"

“SHE WAS NOT HID” NO. 2019

Do you witness to others about their salvation? If not, then you are likely not saved yourself.

Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?

It is commonly believed today by Christians that the events of the Apocalypse, occurring under the opening of the seven seals, takes place within a predestined time period of seven years. This belief is not based upon anything stated in the Book of Revelation, for as we will see, the events that transpire on earth during events connected with the seals take in far more than seven years. This is so obvious that one wonders why a seven year limit for those events is imposed upon the Apocalypse record.

Those who espouse a time period of seven years for the events of the seals do so because they think the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9: 24-27) is to be imposed upon the timeline of events in the Apocalypse. But, there is absolutely no warrant for doing this, and the fact that it has been done has created much confusion and contradiction.

More Than Seven Years

Revelation's time line takes in more than seven years. There is not a single verse from Revelation that says there will be a seven year tribulation period. Although there are lots of sevens in Revelation (the number appears more than fifty times), there is no mention of seven years. There are two forty-two-month periods (11:2; 13:5), two 1,260-day periods (11:3; 12:6), and one “a time and times and half a time” (12:14), each adding up to three and one-half years. If they are added up, the result is seventeen and one-half years. This is besides those references to "five months," "a year, a month, and a day," and also excludes all those events that occur and in which no time period is given for their occurrence.

In the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible the division is explained this way: “John in Revelation divides [the Tribulation] into two periods of three and one-half years each or 1,260 days each, a total of seven years.” 

But where in Revelation does it say this? Consider the fact that all the three and a half year periods appear more than halfway through Revelation.

Now, let me give a time line up to the sounding of the seventh trumpet of the seventh seal.

First Seal (white horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

Second Seal (red horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- there is worldwide civil war and no peace (nothing but conflict) nor safety
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Third Seal (black horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- Scarcity and famine
- world's food supply is rationed
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fourth Seal (pale horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- death everywhere by famine, conflict, pestilence
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fifth Seal (activities around the altar in heaven)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- petitions for justice and vengeance by the martyrs and persecuted ones
- the martyrs in heaven are told to "rest yet for a little season"
- we cannot determine exactly how much time is calculated therein

Sixth Seal (earthquake)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

- sealing of 144,000
- assembling and equipping of saints and angels in heaven
- the catastrophes connected with this seal's opening show that it must encompass weeks, if not months and years

No indication for how much time the events of the first six seals takes.

Seventh Seal (destruction of vegetation)

- seven trumpet angels prepare to sound
- activity around heaven's altar by departed saints

- 1st trumpet sounds and brings destruction of vegetation by fiery hail
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 2nd trumpet sounds and brings destruction of 1/3rd sea creatures and ships by turning water to blood
- no indication of a time period for the events
- can assume weeks or months

- 3rd trumpet sounds and brings wormwood (bitter or poisonous) toxins to rivers, streams, fountains and causing widespread death
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 4th trumpet sounds and brings abnormal darkness over earth via sun, moon, and stars
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

No indication for how much time the events of the first four trumpeters takes.

- 5th trumpet sounds and brings opening of the bottomless pit and release of infernal locusts
- the torment upon unbelievers by the locusts goes "five months"
- "One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter"

- 6th trumpet sounds and brings the freeing of the four angels and their hellish armies from Euphrates River imprisonment.
- "a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" (13 months)
- the angel with the rainbow head covering, feet of brass, and face as the sun, sets his foot on land and sea and makes announcement
- the two witnesses appear in Jerusalem and begin their mission of judgment
- the period of the two witnesses is given as 1260 days (42 months)
- the period when the Gentiles are occupying Jerusalem is 42 months
- these periods seem to be the same time period
- killed by the Antichrist
- "the second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe comes quickly"
- how much time then under the 6th trumpet?
- it seems clear that the 13 months precedes the 42 months, and even if the 42 month periods run concurrently, there still is a total of 55 months.

- 7th trumpet sounds and begins with announcements among heaven's grand assize
- "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth"
- battle between the heavenly woman and her seed and the Dragon and his seed envisioned
- the woman in her seed are protected for 1260 days and as "time, times, and half a time" (42 months)
- battle in the heavens between Michael and his angels and the Devil and his angels
- the victory of Michael and the casting down of the Devil to the earth
- battle between saints on earth with the beast's military police
- Antichrist comes to power and "continues 42 months" along with the false prophet
- it is probable that the 1260 days or the woman's protection is simultaneous with the 42 months of the beast's reign of terror
- Lamb appears on Mt. Zion with the 144,000
- the appearance of Christ in the clouds preparing to harvest
- the appearance of the seven plague angels

Allowing no time to be allotted for what happens during the opening of the first six seals, and allotting no time for the sounding of the first four trumpets of the seventh seal, there is still more than seven years time involved in the events occurring under the sounding of the 5th, 6th, and 7th trumpets of the seventh seal. We begin with the stated "five months" under the 5th trumpet. Next, under the 6th trumpet, we have three time periods given. First, the 13 months and a day and hour, second, two references to 42 months, one for the prophesying of the two witnesses, and one for the reign of the Antichrist. It is clear that the 42 month reign of Antichrist begins with his killing of the two witnesses. Thus, the 42 month period of the witnessing is followed by the 42 month period of the beast's reign. This all being so, we have but to add 13 months + 5 months + 42 months + 42 months to get 102 months (eight years and six months)! And that excludes so many time periods not stated.

So, there is without a doubt more than seven years involved in the timeline of events for the opening of the seals, from Rev. 6 through Rev. 19.

On The "Free Will" Theodicy

"The simple presence of free will is not enough to explain the origin of evil." (From "Why Does God Allow Evil?" by R.C. Sproul (here)

I have studied the so called "problem of evil" for nearly fifty years and I can say amen to the above words.

Pre Trib & The 1000 Years

Pre Trib Premillenialists agree with all other Premillenialists that exactly 1000 years separate the first resurrection of the just from the second resurrection of the unjust, as Rev. 20 says. I say they "agree" but do they really? Can they say this and be consistent? No, they cannot. Here is why.

If the rapture comes seven years before the beginning of the Millennium, then the resurrection of the just, or "first resurrection," comes not 1000 years, but 1007 years, before that of the second resurrection. Don't you see? The rapture has to take place at the end of this age, which point in time is also when the Millennium begins. Thus, to put exactly 1000 years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust uproots the pre trib rapture view.

Consider also the fact that Jesus and the scriptures put the resurrection of the righteous "at the last day." But, if it occurs seven years before the last day, as the pre trib view affirms, then it is not the last day.

Consider also the fact that all the righteous are resurrected and raptured at the same time. But, no pre trib advocate affirms this. They affirm that some are saved after the rapture and resurrection, in the seven year tribulation period, and therefore these must undergo a translation and resurrection separate from the others. Thus, they deny that all are resurrected and translated at the same time.