All right, let's go ahead and get started. Let's open up with a word of prayer. Father, we thank you so much for today. We're grateful for the work that you did on the cross for us. It's fantastic to just look back, look through your word, and be reminded of the things that you did in our place. Your substitutional atonement, where you took the sins of the world and applied them to yourself. It's fantastic. It's not something that we can even really put to words. So I'm grateful, Lord. I ask as we as a group continue to dive into your word into this study, that you continue to give us diligence to look to see what your word actually says, to reevaluate your word, to look at it at the basic grammatical meaning, to come to the conclusion that you intended us to come to. Lord, we know that there's only one meaning to your word. It's the meaning that you intended. So I ask that you empower us through the power of the Holy Spirit as we try to conform our minds to your image through study of your word. I pray for this in Jesus name. Amen. All right. So we're jumping back into our study of the rapture of the church. This might be a surprise to some of you that we're still studying the rapture of the church with how much of a focus we've been putting on the alternative viewpoints and sub-subjects such as imminence and arguments against that. But it's all encompassed in this basic study of the rapture of the church, which is that we are expecting, not just expecting, but anticipating the coming of the Lord for the body of Christ, which is the body of Christ in general, at any moment. There is nothing that has to happen first in order for us to be raptured to our Lord. And that's something that we ought to pray for on a regular basis. So in the midst of this, we've studied the subject of eminence, which, again, is the idea that he could come back at any moment. We looked at the arguments against eminence as we evaluated them to determine the legitimacy of those arguments. We spent quite a bit of time looking at what we actually believe. which is answering the question, what does the Bible actually say about this rapture of the church? Well, in the midst of that, we determined that it was A, pre-tribulational, which means that we have an end date, we cannot be raptured after the beginning of the tribulational period, because we have promises saying that we are exempt from the time of testing that's about to come upon the whole world that we are not destined for the wrath of god put in the context of the tribulational period what's more is that this rapture this coming of the lord where he's going to take a body of believers to him concerns those in christ it's been said before i think jade white pentecost senate he was regurgitating what uh... schaefer dot which is that If you were to summarize Pauline theology, like the theology of Paul, it could be summarized in the two words of in Christ. That's the center of his theology. That was the center of his focus. Just like the center of the focus of John Calvin was on the sovereignty of God, Arminius was on the free will of God. All of these things encompass into this argument, which is Paul's, which is that we are in Christ. So Paul says, this is what you need to know about being in Christ. This is what you need to know about living in light of the fact that you're in Christ. And that's what we see in Ephesians, Romans, Colossians. So in any case, it's concerning those in Christ, this rapture of the church, which is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, us. And so what we know is we have an end date. we know that who is concerning who's going to be raptured and what's more as we also know the fact that there is no event that has to take place before it happens it which is why we believe that it's imminent because we have studied the new testament and we've noted that the New Testament actually does teach this idea that He could come back at any moment. So, all of this to say, when we make an argument, and we base it, or try to originate it on the Word of God, but what we are expecting the future to hold, we're going to come to this conclusion. Because we do it through the lens of a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture. Which means that we take Scripture at face value, we don't impute meaning where there isn't one, and we're trying to learn what the Bible says based upon simply what the Word of God actually contains. Because we don't believe we're in a vacuum, we are looking at the alternative viewpoints on the rapture. There are four alternative viewpoints that we're looking at throughout this study. The first is the post-tribulational rapture, which is the one that we're looking at today, which is this idea that Jesus could not come back at any moment. But they believe that he can come back at any moment. So they kind of muddy the lines. And the reason they do that is because they'll say, well, it says that no man knows when he's going to come. Therefore, it has to be sometime towards the end of the tribulational period. Which is interesting, because they will attest most of the time, because they're premillennial, which for whatever weird reason, manifests itself in a little observational viewpoint of Old Testament prophecy, that Daniel's 70th week was a literal 483 years. And because they believe that, they also believe the tribulational period is a literal seven years, but they believe somehow this also makes it so that we don't know when he's going to come. In any case, they believe that the rapture of the church is post-tribulational, meaning that it is the culmination of the rapture where we are taken up to Christ and Armageddon, when Christ goes with us down to earth to take over the world to begin his kingdom. So the partial rapture theory is a lot more complicated. The reason for that is because it's probably the most unbiblical of all of these four viewpoints. I'm saying that, I know it sounds bad when I say it that way, but there are a lot of reasons that they do this. The partial rapture basically attests to one of two things. Either they believe that only those who are really walking with the Lord, really focusing on him in step, really doing all of the dot and every T and I in terms of the Christian life, only those people are going to be raptured. And then as Christians get to maturity, each one of them will be raptured at a future date. That's one of the viewpoints. That's the less popular version. The more popular version of the partial rapture theory believes that The same thing about the initial group, that if you're walking with Christ, you're eligible for the first rapture, that it is a higher level of blessing, because they're muddying it with the judgment seat of Christ. So they believe that this is a higher level blessing than other Christians will achieve. And then they believe the second rapture is this gathering of the elect that we've been studying for weeks at the end of the tribulational period, where they are, the rest of the Christians, those who, again, Romans 11 is the way that they're wording this, are alive and remain, in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, will be, if they survive to the end, will be taken to be with the Lord. So, they believe there are two raptures of the church. Not one. And so that's what a lot of people don't realize about the partial rapture theory. Now, it's wrong, but we'll go into why it's wrong at a much later date. The mid-trib rapture is exactly what it says. It's pretty cut and dry. Mid-trib. They believe in the middle of the tribulational period, the church is going to be raptured. One rapture for the body of Christ. The pre-wrath rapture is a lot more complicated, because every single one of those viewpoints would argue, with the exception of post-tribulationalism, that they are pre-wrath, because they're specifying that the wrath of God is a specific flavor of wrath that happens towards the last third to quarter of the tribulational period. So they believe everything up to that point in the trib is all Satan's wrath, the world's wrath, tribulations and trials, the stuff that Christians would have and encounter on a daily basis. So those are the four alternative viewpoints. We would be completely opposed to every single one of these. Every single one of these would claim that we are unbiblical. We are pre-tribulational in terms of our expectation of the rapture, meaning that we believe it's going to happen prior to the trib. What's interesting, and this is where a lot of the language of the arguments goes sideways, is that the burden of proof actually rests upon every one of these four viewpoints to find the rapture some point in the trib, to find biblical tests that attest to a rapture. We'll get into this at a later date. Post-trib is the easiest, because they just take things like Matthew 24, Revelation 19, Luke. And what they'll do is they'll say, well, this is the rapture. Now, that being said. We have been studying the post-tribulational rapture perspective for what has ended up being about nine weeks. This is the ninth lesson that we've taught on this particular viewpoint. Now, just to give you guys a reminder of where we're at on this, the way that we interacted with their viewpoint is to do what I think is the best idea, which is to figure out how do the post-trib rapturists handle the letters to the Thessalonians, Revelation, and 1 Corinthians. How do they actually handle that? How do they actually go through that? And we came to the conclusion that they did a pretty decent job until they get to a point of contention. And then they either ignore, like in John 14, I can't emphasize this enough, the fact that Jesus built useless houses under their viewpoint in heaven for his body, for his church. Or they muddy the waters in terms of the resurrections, which is something we'll be getting into later today. So it doesn't really matter which point it is. They always switch their interpretive method in the midst of what they're looking at when they encounter obstacles. Now, what we've been looking at are what I call the five arguments of the post-trib rapture perspective. We've made it through three of them. Which leaves us to this one fourth argument that we spent quite a few weeks on. And the reason that we've spent a lot of weeks on this, and the reason that this is somewhat redundant for what we had already studied in Israel, is because this is the crux of the argument that goes against pre-tribulationalism. So it doesn't matter what your viewpoint is, if you are not a pre-tribulational rapturist, which is what we would attest to be, you're going to look at Matthew 24, and you're going to see the rapture in it, unless you're one of the five pre-wrath people that would not do so. So that being said, we're going to look at this in a little bit more detail. The basic summary of Matthew 24, is that Matthew 24 has a lot of components that are similar to the rapture. But the thing is, they talk about the elect being gathered from basically the four corners of the earth. So the question then becomes, because it sounds like a rapture, What is he actually talking about? Well, if you just look at the basis of what Matthew 24 says, you'll notice that it is not Jesus gathering his elect, but angels that he sent out to do it. What's more is that he never defines who the elect are in this passage. So the question is, is Matthew 24 a letter written to church age believers by an apostle? The answer is no. It is Jesus answering a very Jewish question to the remnant of Israel who is asking him that question, which is what are going to be the signs of the end of the age and your coming? That's what he's answering. And so when he talks about the elect, what you'll notice is that the elect is actually linked to Israel. We can actually prove that just from the context of Matthew 24. However, Because Jesus not only doesn't define those, but he also gives references to a lot of prophetic events that have already been revealed in the Old Testament, we actually have to look at prior revelation to figure out where Jesus is reaching to to give that info. Because again, it's not something that we can do without looking at the context. So what did we learn? Well, we learned that Israel is referred to as the chosen people of God from the Old Testament. We learn that in the midst of being the chosen people, they were to evangelize other nations by being a light to God, both with their conduct, both with their words, with their actions. And what's more is that their temple, where they were to be worshiping the one true God, was an act that other nations were to be able to see and they were to follow. And we see that The option that we give a lot, the example we give a lot is Queen of Bathsheba, not Bathsheba. I always get that wrong. But that was their goal, and they failed that. That was their role, and they failed it. What's more is that this role did not come without consequences. There were benefits, to be certain, very good benefits, that he would bless them, that he would keep them in the land. All of these promises given to Israel, yet they failed those. The primary consequence of their issue was death and dispersion. And we see them disperse quite a bit. But what's more interesting is that the Bible gives a lot of prophecies about their regatherings. And a lot of them are distinct from one another, which is quite interesting. So there are prophecies given, especially in Jeremiah, which talk about when the 70 years are complete, the judgment to God will cease and they can go back to the land. After that, we have other prophecies that refer to a greater dispersion. and a greater regathering. But the thing about the regatherings is that there are different purposes in regatherings that the Old Testament gives. We looked at this in a lot of detail. I welcome you to read back at these scripture verses to get a little bit more clarity. But the first regathering, post their regathering to Jerusalem at the end of the 70 years, is actually for the purpose of her judgment, of the judgment of Israel. That being said, once they are in the land, which we believe is happening right now, she's actually going to be going into the tribulational period after the apostasy we see in 2 Thessalonians 2 happens, after she makes a covenant with not the king of God's own choosing, but rather this embodiment of the enemy of God. They decide to make this person their king, this person their messiah. It's the most evil thing Israel's done in her entire history, which is saying a lot if you know a lot about Israel's history. So that being said, we know that two-thirds of the nation are going to be cut off during the tribulational period. The third is going to be refined brought through the fire and what's more is that there is a prop there are many prophecies in the Old Testament that this is when they are going to call upon the name of the Lord when they're going to call upon their Savior and what's more is that we know that the benefit of this calling upon the name of the Lord of this believing in the king of God's own choosing is that God of or the technically the god of God's own choosing would actually re-gather them into the land and establish the kingdom and the benefits of all of the unconditional covenants are fulfilled. When we're looking at who is the elect in Matthew 24, which is what we've spent quite a bit of time on, we cannot just assign a meaning to that word. We have to look at all of this information, because this is the wealth of information that Jesus is interacting with the Jews on, because the Jews would have been very familiar with these things in the Old Testament. They may not have had the right interpretation of them, but this information would have been at hand for them to reach into. So that's what we've been studying for a few weeks. And we are finally on to the fifth argument. I just wanted to make sure we actually summarize that, because we kind of ran out of time last week. So when I see elect in Matthew 24, I know that's talking about Israel. I indisputably know that's talking about Israel. You have to ignore and reassign all of that evidence to try to make it somebody else. We are not Israel. We are very much not Israel. 17 minutes into our summary, we now interact with argument number five. So argument number five is a little bit more interesting, where it says that the resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20 is called the first resurrection. Now, post-tribulationalists assert that since the first resurrection takes place after the tribulation, the resurrection associated with the rapture in 1 Thessalonians chapter four cannot occur until then. Wow, that's a pretty good argument. I mean, it says the first resurrection, so how do we interact with that? It's the first resurrection. That's what the Bible says. So does that mean that there's no resurrection prior to this point? Well, let's interact with that viewpoint. It seems like a logical argument, but here's the thing. It's missing a lot of information, and it's also missing a lot of biblical perspective. First of all, there is a distinction between a resurrection from the dead, or somebody being raised from the dead, and a resurrection. If you actually look at the wording very closely, and you follow the facts, and you analyze it correctly, there are distinctions there. One is receiving life where there wasn't one. And the other is a translation or a transformation from one body into a new body. These are distinct ideas. And I'm going to prove that in a second. Second, the resurrection could not possibly be the first resurrection. because even Jesus was resurrected after three days in the grave. So is Revelation chapter 20 disagreeing with the gospel representation of Jesus? I don't think so. I think we must have something messed up in our understanding of the wording if we're assuming that. So when this says the first resurrection, Does that mean that there was never, ever, ever, anyone ever resurrected before that? We even see that in 1 Corinthians 15, that it says because Jesus was resurrected that we will also be resurrected. So what does Revelation 20 actually mean? We'll look at that in a second. Third, there have been varied reports throughout the church age that God supernaturally resurrected Christians for the purpose of his glory. Well, what do we actually see right after the crucifixion? Some people being raised from the dead. We saw Lazarus raised from the dead. Was he raised with a resurrected body? No. He probably died at a normal age. age of death in the first century, at the end of his life. So to suggest that this resurrection, being the first resurrection, actually necessitates a blending of two resurrections together. which is sloppy. It's the same thing with us assuming that the rapture is the same thing as the second coming, because Jesus is coming in one of them, coming in the other one. There are trumpets in one, and there are trumpets in the other, so they must be the same. It's a logic based upon similarities and assuming that there's an equality there. A better way to understand this, there are also the first two resurrections prophesied by Daniel and Daniel 12 too, where it says that some are resurrected to life, others are resurrected for another purpose. Just reminding you of Daniel chapter 12. Now, Thomas Cospel says the times when God will raise the righteous are as follows. First, he raised Jesus Christ, who is the first fruits of those who sleep. We see that in verse 23 of 1 Corinthians 15. We looked at that many times. Second, he raised some saints near Jerusalem shortly after Jesus' resurrection, Matthew 27. Though this was probably a temporary resuscitation like that of Lazarus, Third, he will raise Christians at the rapture. Fourth, he will raise two witnesses during the tribulation. Fifth, he will raise the tribulation martyrs at the beginning of the millennium. Sixth, he will raise the Old Testament saints probably at the same time. Seventh, he will apparently raise the saints who died during the millennium. The idea that the resurrection of believers takes place in stages also finds support in 1 Corinthians 15. What am I trying to get at with this? Well, I'm trying to make a very specific point that I can't take a word out of Revelation chapter 20 and say that there's only one resurrection therefore every other Resurrection talked about in the Bible has to be all at the same time in one event because the Bible if you look at it in a whole Doesn't actually attest to that point So That being said I don't think that's even a worthwhile argument to really interact with because they're missing the basic meaning of scripture when they say that. So let me expound upon this a little bit. So is the rapture the first resurrection? I would argue that it could be. The reason for that is because it's the first resurrection of the church age. It's the first resurrection of the body of believers. Is the resurrection that happens at the end of the trib the first resurrection? Again, it's the same thing as our trumpet judgment. What was our problem when we interacted with their idea of the trumpets? When they see the first trumpet or the last trumpet, they're assuming the last trumpet has to be the last trumpet ever. Not understanding that there are different last trumpets for different segments of purpose. So again, when we say first resurrection, why can't I assume that this is just the first resurrection of the church age? It could also be the last resurrection of the church age, depending on how you look at it, because the entire body of Christ is going to be in a reunion at that point. It's gonna be the first moment in history every member of the body of Christ is in the same place at the same time. First time. It's also the first time they're all resurrected at the same time. So like when we're looking at this argument, well, it doesn't really make a lot of sense when you look at it in light of what the New Testament has to say about resurrections. And what's more is just because you were resuscitated from the dead, raised from the dead, it doesn't mean that you were resurrected. It just means that Jesus raised you from the dead and restored life to your body. Again, you didn't receive a resurrected body then, so it was not a resurrection. Because when Jesus was resurrected, he was able to eat food, disappear, walk through walls. I mean, he had all of these things associated with him that somebody raised from the dead would not otherwise have. So when we're looking at this and saying, oh, the first resurrection, you have to keep in mind that there are different terms the Bible uses. And the basic fact that Jesus himself was already resurrected and actually referred to as the first fruits in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 23, that this has to be referring to something else. And so for them to simply use this as an argument against the idea that the rapture could happen prior to the resurrection talked about in Revelation chapter 20, it's not actually an argument because we're dealing with different groups of people. So that being said, what are the basic precepts of the post-trip position? I want to read through this very quickly, because I think this is really important to us understanding their viewpoints. Their first argument is that the rapture is not an event separate from the second coming, by which believers enter heaven, but the means by which the church is brought into the presence of God. This is taken almost verbatim from Robert Gundry and Douglas Moo. They assert that the Greek word for tribulation, which is thalipsis, is used 45 times in the New Testament and is overwhelmingly used for the tribulations believers suffer in the last days. So why do they say that? Because they argue, well, if it's used in the first I think it's 38 to 40 times in the New Testament relating to present tribulations that we experience as Christians in a fallen world. Why would we assume that we're exempt from the other five times it's used? Next, they assert that God's wrath and judgment is poured out after the final tribulation. They do this by attempting to selectively view the end times passages, which indisputably refer to the events of the second coming as distinct in nature from the other normal tribulational passages. This is a distinction without a difference. An easy reading of Revelation starting in chapter shit. I would actually start in chapter four and five when you see that Jesus is the one that's worthy to open the seals. which again proves that he not only is the one that's doing it, as we see in Revelation chapter six in the beginning of the seal judgments, but he is the only one who can. That's the whole point of that particular passage. So when they're trying to say that all of these judgments that are happening are Satan's judgments or the world's judgments, they're actually stripping Jesus of the glory that is to be brought through what he is actually doing as he brings judgment on the world. And we know from the Old Testament that we ought not to touch the glory of God. Doesn't work out very well. Jesus is the one that brings forth judgment. Jesus is the one that resuscitates the world. And Jesus is the one who brings in his kingdom. It's so clear from Revelation. Next. They often assert Isaiah 26 is referring to the protection of the church during the tribulation. Everybody in the post-trip crowd uses this verse. And every single one of them ignores the fact that it's talking about Israel and God protecting Israel so that he can bring the kingdom forth through Israel at the end of the trip. as he brings forth his kingdom." Again, they will use that. They never go into exposition on Isaiah chapter 26. They just simply reference it, read it, and then move on to make their point. It doesn't matter who you're reading. It doesn't matter what level of education they have. They all fit into this category, where they will just use it to try to make an argument. That being said, reasoning on this basis, which is that believers would be in the Trib, Moo questions why believers would be exempt from Tribulation when they are not clearly exempt from the Tribulations right now. The way they accomplish this line of logic is to make the assumption that the wrath of God isn't a main characteristic of the Tribulational period, just the Day of the Lord. And so you'll see this pretty much everywhere. That's why I make the argument for distinctions without a difference. So they'll try to make a minute distinction between different versions of wrath to try to make it look like the day of the Lord is just a different flavor of wrath. I would actually agree that it's a greater degree of wrath than what we see in the bold judgments, because that's what's taught in Revelation. Sealed judgments, severe, very severe. A quarter of the world's population die. Trumpet judgments, more severe. Bull judgments, even more severe. Armageddon, the most severe. That's the purpose of the birth pangs analogy that Jesus gives, is to show that this is all a culminating effort that will eventually judge the world and bring in his kingdom. So that being said, when interacting with our three main verses on the rapture, their tendency is to conflate the resurrection part of the rapture with the resurrection of Old Testament saints before the Millennial Kingdom. They look at John 14 as simply denoting the bringing of the church into the presence of God, not the Father's house. which is a clear violation of the normal means or normal meaning of that particular verse. And they look at the primary passage in Thessalonians as the catching up of believers by the Lord, and they're escorting him back to the earth on the basis of the word meeting. Because they assert that the word for meeting actually has a deeper meaning, which implies that meeting means taking back and escorting back to the place of origin. We looked at the word for meaning. It just means meaning. It's everywhere it's used. It may have been used in a context where the goal was to take the Apostle Paul back to their city, but that doesn't mean that everywhere it's used. We talked about it. It's a logical fallacy. Next, Matthew 24 pertains to the people of God and will therefore include the church as the rapture. This would mean the rapture is post-tribulational. This is their argument. So when I brought up the fact that I thought that the post-tribulational perspective is the easiest perspective to argue, this is why. Because they take half of a scripture verse in John 14 to try to make a point. They're not even trying to make the point with that passage. They're simply trying to negate the normal meaning of the text when they do that, just so they're not leaving a loose end in John 14 while they hyper-focus on different scriptures. So this is where we're going to do one more argument for the post-trib crowd. But this is the basis of their position. So when you're talking to someone who says, well, there can't be two second comings, They can say that as if it's a good argument, but the basis for their argument is this. This is the height of scholarship, arguing for the post-strip crowd, at least the best that I could find. And I don't think that it really holds water to the normal meaning of scripture. That being said, we have one more argument to look at. We'll see how long it takes us to read Revelation 3, verse 10. So let's go there. Let's turn our Bibles for the first time today to Revelation chapter 3, verse 10. Okay, a couple things. Let's look at the context really quick. So what is Revelation 2 and 3 about? Well, it's the letters to the seven churches. What is Jesus trying to communicate? Different things to each individual church. But he has a very, very common structure to each one of these that's kind of unmistakable. What does he do? He addresses the churches. He identifies himself with a characteristic about himself. He usually exhorts them to godly living after he tells them something true about them. Then what he does is he gives them an exhortation to fix whatever problem he interacted with them, if he even had a problem to interact with. And then he simply says something that is true about them in their identity in light of what's true in light of what he says is true about them, linked to their identity in Christ. That's the basic structure of each one of these letters, whether it's Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, it doesn't really matter. That's the basic structure. Who's he talking to in Revelation chapter three? Well, starting in verse seven, going to verse 13, he's addressing the Church of Philadelphia. We studied this in a lot more detail before, that's why I'm kind of moving through it a little bit faster. What did we note last time we were looking at this verse? We noted that the punctuation in the Bible is not biblically inspired. And that when we're coming to a common meaning of scripture, we can't just base theology on where the punctuation leads. If we see something that doesn't make sense with the grammar in the Greek, we have to interpret on the basis of what actually makes sense in the inspired scripture. There's nothing inspired about our chapter divisions. So we're gonna start at verse seven, we'll read through verse 13, and then we'll interact with their points. And to the angel of the Church of Philadelphia I write, He who is holy, he who is true, he who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens, says this, I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept my word, and have not denied my name. Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but Liah will make them come and bow down at your feet and make them know that I have loved you because you have kept the word of my perseverance. I will also keep you from the hour of testing, the hour which is to come upon the whole world, about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. I'm coming quickly. Hold fast what you have so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it anymore. And I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God and my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches. So what did I do? I actually read verses nine through 10. I call it 10 A and 10 B together. And the reason I did that is because that period doesn't, I believe doesn't belong there after the word you at the end of verse nine. The reason I think that is, if you remember what we went into, Greek almost never begins a sentence with the word because. For that matter, English traditionally doesn't either. You would have to actually put a comma after the word because if you wanted to do it grammatically correctly in English. That being said, why on earth would we have a period there? it's not inspired. It's helpful, it's incredibly helpful, but the punctuation in this verse is not necessarily inspired. So when I read that, it actually makes more grammatical sense to say, I will make them come and bow down at your feet and make them know that I have loved you because you have kept the word of my perseverance. And that makes grammatical sense. Because what does he say following that? I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth. What's more is what is he actually promising in this verse? Well, he's saying that I will keep you from the hour that the testing is going to happen in. Not just testing, not just a specific hour, the hour of testing. That's the basic promise here. So that's the context that we're going into. So how do we interpret this? Well, exactly how it's written. Where is this written? Revelation. What is it talking about? What hour of testing could he possibly be talking about in the book of Revelation? Okay, basic context. He's talking about the tribulational period. And he's saying, I will keep you from this, not in the part of the letter that's conditional, He's saying this in the part of the letter which is saying something that is true about them. They're in Christ. He is going to keep them from the hour of testing because it does what? Or doesn't do what? It doesn't serve any purpose in the life of a Christian. We already have trials. We already have tribulations in life. This specific flavor of tribulation that's prophesied in the Old Testament, there's no purpose for a believer to be in it, though we know many people are saved through the tribulational period. Both, I believe, from the testimony of however many Christians get raptured and disappear, and from the fact that we have a wealth of information about exactly the nature of the tribe, the nature of God. The entire purpose of Romans 1 is to argue that it is axiomatic that God created the world. That is the argument made in Romans 1. No one has any excuse. And I think people realize the signs of the times when the rapture happens. That's just my opinion, though. A couple quotes where people are misusing this verse, because that's really what we're here to talk about, is how people misuse the verse and how do we interact with that. These are all on the post-trib side of the aisle. They say, this is Terry Sue Rittering, founder on the internet, she had a book written, if not pre-trib rapture, then what? She says, another frequently cited verse by these proponents, we are these proponents in the context of what she's writing. In Revelation 3 verse 10, which says, because you have kept the word about patient endurance, I will keep you from Tereoek, the hour of trial, which is to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth. This is actually a message to the specific church of Philadelphia, which suffered a great deal of persecution under Emperor Trojan in AD 98. Even if there might be some analogy to modern Christians, the Greek term trioec, I will keep you from the hour of trial, merely refers to God's protection in the midst of adversity. See what they do there? They switch what the word means. Jesus used these words with the same meaning. And I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. In both verses, Torah clearly implies a protection and a guarding of God's people in the midst of tribulation, as a fortress encircles its inhabitants and defends them from the enemy. Thus, pre-tribulationalists have taken these words to the Church of Philadelphia out of their context only to prove what they have already convinced themselves to believe. Yeah, which also, by that logic, would mean that if Paul says in Romans 8 that all of these things, all of these trials and persecutions work together for the good of those who love God and walk according to His purposes, that must not be to us. That must just be to the Romans, right? So again, she makes a few mistakes here. I think she's actually quoting somebody Because tereoec doesn't mean I will keep you from the hour of trial. It just means to keep from, or to keep within, in certain contexts. But we're going to go into a few more people. Now, the good old John Piper says that the strongest pre-tribulational text, Revelation 3.10, it is a very strong pre-tribulational text, by the way, is open to another interpretation without any twisting. I'm just going to leave that there. He says, it says, because you have kept the word of our patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial, which is coming upon the whole world to test those who dwell upon the earth. But to be kept from the hour of testing is not necessarily to be taken out of the world during this hour. And thus, spared suffering. Compare Galatians 1, verse 4 and Jesus' prayer to his disciples in John 15, 17, where to keep from does not mean physical removal. And notice the inevitability of martyrdom in Revelation 6. The promise is to be guarded from the demoralizing forces of that hour. Wow. So a couple of things. I looked at Galatians 1, verse 4. It doesn't even have the words in it. So we're just going to ignore Galatians 1 verse 4 and not even interact with it. We will look at John 17, 15 in a little bit. And by a little bit, I mean next week. But keep this last phrase in mind. I think this is the most important to note. He says, this promise, or the promise, is to be guarded from the demoralizing forces of that hour. That does not happen. If you look at the book of Revelation, you look at the narrative given there. But John Piper would be very opposed to our opinions on this. So that being said, very quickly as we're closing, what is actually being discussed in Revelation 3, verse 10? We already read the verse, so let's look at the verb tereo. Tereo means to keep or observe. That is the native meaning of the text. And ek is the word from. I don't know how well you can read the words on this. I put these up for a reason. So if you look, the top word is our word tereo, tereo. And the blue on this little graph is every time in the Bible, percentage-wise, it means to keep, or keeping, or keeps. The red is kept. So just looking at that, we're talking about just over 75% of the usages in the New Testament just mean simply to keep. Next, if you go down, you're actually going to go all the way down into the little, mini, little parts. And that's where you would come up with his viewpoint. 95% of the usages of the word for tereo means to keep or to restrain for a purpose. Next, the bottom one is the word ek. What does it actually mean? Well, blue is of. So, or I'm sorry, up from, which is to keep from, because we already decided what Toretto means. So to keep from is the blue. The red would be to keep of. And if you work your way around, you will eventually find the word in. But just so we're clear, that little itty bitty thing is his meaning. So before we even look at what the word means in other places in scripture, which should be our primary focus, right? Because when we're determining the meaning of a word, we don't do it based upon simply what a dictionary says. The meaning of a word is based upon how it's used, which is why the meaning of certain words in the English language right now are different than what Webster's Dictionary actually attributes to them, because they're used differently than they were in an old dictionary when the dictionary is written. So that being said, The very basic meaning of tereoek is to keep from. That's what the word basically means. That's why it is translated as such. The alternative meanings are few and far between. The only other time tereoek is used in the Greek New Testament is John 17, verse 15, where it speaks of God the Father keeping believers from the evil one. Does he do that? Yeah. If you are a Christian, you cannot be possessed by a demon, because you are inhabited by the Holy Spirit forever as a promise of your future redemption. You're sealed. That's the way Ephesians chapter 1 words it. Though the debate about tereoek continues to be lively, the normal meaning of the text continues to carry the idea of keeping from. So we could go into a lot of detail about why we think that isn't the case. They could push their arguments to try to make the point. But the basic meaning of to keep you from in Revelation 3 verse 10 is simply to keep you from. Most of the time in the NASB, they translate it correctly. Not every time, but for this time, I think they did a really good job. So that being said, a couple thoughts. because we're pretty much out of time, but I also have a few very quick things. Post-tribulationalists are our family in Christ. They are Christians. They are in Christ. They are in the body of Christ. And it is entirely possible to interact with these points in an intellectually honest way that doesn't just insult them. Next, their position is very surface level, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The reason I'm saying that is because it usually means they have room to grow, room to learn. And their expectation for the future is actually based on the conflation of the second coming and the rapture. And the lack of perception about biblical distinctions that the Bible holds. Next, when people look at their viewpoint, it ignores the nature of Jesus' building temporary dwelling places in heaven. This is a big deal because this is a promise that Jesus made. We're not to marginalize the promises of our Lord. We're to trust them. It's not something to be debated. It's something to simply believe. And finally, they also miss the Jewish nature and context of the idea of the gathering of the elect. And so on this basis, as we're observing the objections that the post-trib crowd has to a pre-tribulational rapture, Again, the burden of proof rests on them to unravel these issues and to come to a conclusion. We're not simply doing that. We're just simply looking at what the Word says. We don't believe that the rapture is going to happen in the tribulational period, which means that we don't have to find the trib somewhere in Revelation. They do. They have to somehow find it in Revelation 19. And I would encourage you to look at that and see if there's anything that sounds like the rapture, because you're not going to find any. Let's go to the Lord in prayer. Father, we thank you so much for your word. We thank you so much for the promises that you have given us as the church. You've promised that you are going to not only save us, but that our salvation is kept through you, in you, because of what you did in our place as our substitute. This is not something that we can debate. This isn't something that we should have conversations to determine if it's true. It's something for us to simply believe. It's something for us to simply trust in, because this is what you did in our place for us. And so as we're looking at the promises, not only of the Christian life, of which we have been promised trials, persecutions, hardships, but more specifically, Lord, as we look towards our future, we're brought to joy as we see the words and the promises that you have given us. You have promised that not only are we not going to have to go through the tribulational period, the time of testing, which is to come upon the whole world, but you have promised us an exemption from that, but not just an exemption, Lord, where we are inside and not hurt, as some have argued, but rather, Lord, you have promised that we will be able to go to you in the Father's house, in the temporary places you have created for us, for the duration of the tribulational period where we will come back with you at the end to rule and reign with you in your kingdom. These are promises you have given us. It's a tremendous future, and it's in light of that future that we're able to go through life, through the trials of life, through sickness, health, whatever, and we're able to see the things that you have done for us. I pray for this, and I'm grateful. I ask that you be with us in the service to come as we take communion, as we think about your blood that was shed for us. But also, Lord, as we're interacting with revelation, it's very complicated, but your word, it's simplicity in the midst of that complication, though, because we're able to look at your word as a whole to come to a meaning of it. I thank you for all of this in Jesus' name, amen.