Hello Jason Hommel,

I hope you don't mind if I do a critique of your "rebuttal."

Jason wrote>>>
From: ww.geocities.com/lasttrum...dding.html (quotes from their webpage are in italics and
indented) For my readers. If you have never been to the "LastTrumpet" before, please read the
url above first, before reading my article. It is not fair to the other author to ask you to read an
evaluation of his work, without asking you to read his work first. Just as you should not read Bible
commentary without having read the Bible first. 8-)

Tim> Thanks, I appreciate the fact that you provided the link to my article.

Jason>>>Attempting right away to sew the first seeds of doubt, through the methods of
skeptcism and ignorance:

Tim> Yes, I am injecting "doubt" that alleged Jewish wedding customs prove a pre-trib rapture.
But, doubt is a good thing for those who have been bamboozled into believing a fabricated story.
As to whether I use "ignorance" as a tool, that's pretty hard to support, since I have provided
some additional information of which many pre-tribbers may not be aware. I don't think that is
"ignorance."

Jason>>> (Quoting my site) "One of the most serious concerns is that we really are not sure of all
the details of these customs."

Furthermore, if a purported pretrib coming to fetch the church to heaven is supposed to reflect
the ancient Semitic custom of a groom's fetching the bride to his home, what is Jesus' taking the
church with Him back to earth right after the marriage supper, and for a thousand years,
supposed to reflect? An ancient Semitic custom of the groom's taking his bride back to her home
to live with her there for a long time?(end quote)

To answer their question, the return of Christ with the Bride to earth IS the marriage supper (not
after the supper), and it is shown in Rev 19. This event (at the conclusion of the bridal week) is
an occasion to show the beauty of the bride in her fine clothes to the gathered audience, the
guests invited to the marriage supper, and to present the new couple as man and wife, having
consumated their marriage during the week.

Tim> Did you just make up this new Jewish wedding custom??? In Jewish custom, the feasting
takes place for the entire seven days! It does NOT begin AFTER the end of the seven days.
Samson's wedding feast is a good example.

Judg 14:12
12        Then Samson said to them, "Let me pose a riddle to you. If you can correctly solve and
explain it to me within the seven days of the feast, then I will give you thirty linen garments
and thirty changes of clothing.
(NKJ)

In genuine Jewish wedding custom, the marriage and consumation of the wedding, where the
bride and groom retire to the "huppah" and consumate the marriage with the intimate act while
the guests wait outside, takes place at the beginning of seven days of feasting. Then, within an
hour or so, the bride and groom emerge and the feasting begins. The feast continues for 7 days,
just as in the above example of Samson.

Your pre-trib scheme falls apart here, because Rev. 19 says "the marriage of the Lamb is come,
His wife hath made herself ready." The "marriage" is the actual ceremony AT THE BEGINNING of
the seven days of feasting. You are making the "marriage of the Lamb" out to be His showing off
his bride after the entire seven days is over! That is nonsense! The bride is seen throughout the
seven days of feasting AFTER the wedding ceremony. She is hidden by her vail ONLY before the
ceremony at the beginning of the seven day feast. The bride and groom emerge from the huppah
the very night of the wedding, and feast with the guests for the entire seven days.

When Revelation 19 says, "the marriage of the Lamb is come, his bride hath made herself ready,"
the wedding HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE. This ANTICIPATES the wedding that is about to
commence! And this statement is at the extreme END OF THE TRIBULATION!!! Therefore, the
wedding ceremony, as well as the seven days of feasting is AFTER the tribulation.

Jason>>>
Esther 1:5 And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that
were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the
garden of the king's palace;
Esther 1:10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded
Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains
that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,
Esther 1:11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people
and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.

Tim> First off, you are quoting something that a Persian king did with his wife. This has nothing to
do with a wedding! The king scheduled a drunken party for his buddies, and he brought out the
queen so the drunken men could lust after her beauty. Is this what you wish to use as a model of
Christ??? What does this have to do with Jewish wedding customs anyway? Secondly, in Rev. 19,
the text says "the marriage of the Lamb is come, His wife hath made herself ready." It is clear
that the wife being made "ready" is in relation to the wedding. The words "is come" is in the
prophetic "aorist tense," meaning has finally arived! A.T. Robertson's Greek Grammar says the
words "is come" means:
"{Is come} (|êlthen|). Prophetic aorist, come at last." So, the bride is NOW, at the very end of
the tribulation, finally RAPTURE READY for the wedding! You cannot put the wedding 7 years
earlier without doing violence to this text!

Jason>>> (Quoting my site, Dr. Robert Gundry) "The pretrib reasoning gets itself into a pickle by
injecting a marriage custom that isn't even mentioned in the biblical text at hand, and then giving
that custom argumentative weight of an allegorical sort but not carrying out the allegory
consistently. In fact, our ignorance of ancient Semitic marriage customs exceeds our knowledge.
And what knowledge we do have shows considerable variation in these customs." (end quote)

As Rev 19 & 21 show above, the underlined statement in the text above is 100% misleading. Here
are some additional biblical texts which make mention of the marriage for the express purpose of
making the analogy that the return is like the marriage.
The text in Ephesians five makes six statements that the husband and wife are like Christ and the
Church. It is unthinkable that a person could think this is not a valid comparison that we are to
make, and that it will require diligent study, considering the text concludes it is one of the great
mysteries of the Bible, as is also the rapture.

Tim> You apparently missed the whole point of my article! I am NOT arguing that the Jewish
wedding customs are unrelated to the end-time scheme! They certainly are! I am arguing that
the REAL customs mentioned in the Bible DO NOT FIT THE PRE-TRIB SCHEME! And I am alleging
that pre-tribbers have been engaged in a scheme to FABRICATE certain elements in order to prop
up their failing doctrine. Because pre-trib cannot be supported by plain biblical evidence, they
resort to extra-biblical arguments, like "Bible codes" and this FABRICATED custom where the
groom is alleged to come catch away his bride, and she does not even have a clue when her
wedding is supposed to be! How then were the ten virgins all waiting on the porper evening at
the brides house with their lamps and oil in Jesus' parable??? How did they know that the Groom
was DELAYED in his coming that night? How did they know which night to wait at the bride's
house for the groom??? Do you suppose they all came over to the bride's house every night for a
year with their lamps??? Hardly! They knew the day of the wedding, which was anounced
beforehand. And they gathered at the brides house ON THE DAY the groom was supposed to
come! And then, runners went on ahead and anounced that the bridegroom was on his way, just
as in Jesus' parable. No kidnapping here!

Jason>>> I'm glad the authors at lasttrump recognize the validity of this comparison of drinking
the wine. Unfortunately they refuse to recognize that the Day of the Lord, and the beginning of
the millinnium, will be at the start of the tribulation at the rapture. Yes, this argument refutes the
idea that the millinnium begins at the end of the tribulation, which I do not believe.

The millinnium will begin at the marriage, when the marriage begins, which is the time the groom
comes to take his bride at the rapture. The bride and groom were also seen as king and queen,
and Rev 4 & 5 is this enthronement ceremony which takes place right after the rapture in Rev
4:1.

Tim> I looked real close at Rev. 4:1, and didn't see any enthronement ceremony! Could you point
that out for me please? Regarding your comment that the Day of the Lord begins at the beginning
of the tribulation, you are mistaken. According to Joel 2:31, Joel 3:14,15, Matt. 24:29, Mark
13:24 & Acts 2:19,20, the cosmic signs of the darkening of the sun and moon takes place AFTER
the tribulation but BEFORE the "Day of the Lord." Therefore, the tribulation MUST end BEFORE the
Day of the Lord begins. There is no alternative.

Jason>>> The authors conclude on this point:
The consumation of the wedding must be post-tribulational. And this is where they make another
mistake. The consumation of the wedding takes place at the start of the bridal week! How in the
world would a bride and groom spend a week together, alone, in the bridal chamber, and not
consummate the marriage? That's the entire purpose of this honeymoon-type week, which they
describe next:

Tim> Yes, the consumation of the wedding takes place at the start of the bridal week! That's the
whole point! And since Rev. 19 clearly says that the "marriage of the Lamb is come, his wife hath
made herself ready" at the EXTREME END OF THE TRIBULATION, the consumation of the wedding,
and the seven days of feasting is AFTER the tribulation, not before or during! I might also point
out that you pre-tribbers, who allegedly cherish the "literal" interpretation of Scripture seem to
have a hard time sticking to "literalism" in Revelation! Why does the seven day feast need to be
seen as seven years? I thought the historicists and a-millennialists are the ones who use the
"year-day" theory! Give me one good reason the marriage feast should not be SEVEN DAYS long!
Since you agree that the Jewish Fall Feasts point to the end-time scenario, and you agree that
the sounding of the trumpet for Rosh Hashanna (or the Jubilee trumpet on Tishri 10) indicates the
rapture, why does not the feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) indicate the seven days of the wedding
feast? Why is not the seven days LITERALLY seven days?????

Jason>>> Here is the reason why the bridal week of seven days should easily be seen to be
representative of the tribulation week of seven years.

The word week in Hebrew is shavuah. It means a "seven", and it can mean seven days or seven
years. This same word is used in a passage that speaks of the bridal week, and also for Daniel's
70th week, Dan 9:24-27. Judges 14:1-18 "...And Samson made a feast there, as was customary
for bridegrooms. ...If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast... She cried
the whole seven days of the feast." Genesis 29:22-28 "So Laban brought together all the people
of the place and gave a feast. ... Finish this daughter's bridal week." Further, it is a "day for a
year" when considering a length of time of a judgment from a type; see Moses and Ezekiel.
Obviously, the wedding is the type, and the tribulation is the judgment, in the issue at hand.
[Num 14:34] "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each
day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of
promise." [Ezek 4:6] "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and
thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for
a year." I don't think it is any stretch to consider these days as "allegorical", since the entire
wedding comparison is allegory.

Tim> That's just the problem, isn't it. You pre-tribbers have now joined the A-millennialists in
supporting your theory EXCLUSIVELY with allegory. Well, I guess I can't blame you. That's how it
started out, with J.N. Darby using the "man child" in Revelation 12 as symbolic of the rapture!
since there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE that when taken literally indicates a
pre-trib rapture! But, the falacy in your argument above is simply this. You are attempting to
stretch the seven days into seven years by showing that the number "7" is sometimes used of
"years." I could just as easily claim that because "seven" is used of "days" elsewhere, that the
wedding feast must be "days." Neither of us prove anything with such a circular argument. Jewish
weddings NEVER had a seven year feast! They were all seven days. So, your analogy breaks
down when you try to stretch it into seven years. It also breaks down because according to the
pre-trib view, after the seven year wedding, the bride and groom go back to earth (the bride's
former home) for 1,000 years! Just how does that fit into the alleged custom? Did the groom
move in with the bride's family after the wedding???

Jason>>> (quoting my site) Pre-tribbers point to the fact that the groom would fetch his bride,
and bring her into the bridal chamber ["huppah"], where they would reside for seven days
immediately following the wedding ceremony. It is alleged that this represents Christ's coming for
His Bride in a pre-trib rapture, where she is taken into heaven [the huppah] for seven years. This
reasoning depends on some unproven assumptions. First, that "heaven" is the "bridal chamber" [or
"huppah"]. Secondly, the seven days are allegorical (meaning years) and represent the seven
years of the tribulation, rather than taking them literally. Pre-tribbers point to John 14:1-3 to
support the idea of heaven being the "bridal chamber" [huppah]. Jesus said to the disciples, "I go
to prepare a place for you." It is claimed that this was a reference to the groom's preparing a
bridal chamber in his father's house.
It is certainly likely that Jesus had the "huppah" in mind here. But, heaven is not necessarily
indicated by the word's "my Father's house." See the article My Father's House for an in depth
discussion showing strong evidence that Jesus was referring to His Millennial Kingdom, not
heaven, in John 14. Jesus used the phrase "my Father's house" earlier to refer to the Temple,
[John 2:15-17]. And, the phrase "house of the Lord," used some 250 times in the Old Testament,
always referred to the Temple, [many times referring to the future Millennial Temple]. Finally, the
Hebrew word "huppah" [bridal chamber] is found only once in Scripture, in a prophetic sense, and
it clearly refers to the Millennium. (end quote)

I find it rather shocking to see him assert that the phrase, "My Father's House" does not mean
heaven. He is correct it also refers to the temple. I wonder why he forgets that the temple is (1)
also the dwelling place of God, as is heaven, and that (2) the temple is a figure and type and
example of those things in heaven? Oh, I know why he forgets. It's because he is trying to reject
and debunk the whole issue. Well, here are the scriptures which he forgets about the temple, and
which refute his comment, heaven is not necessarily indicated by the word's "my Father's house."
when he concludes it is the temple instead.
Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be
purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the
figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Tim> Whether there is a temple in heaven or not is not the point. The point is, what did Jesus
mean by "my Father's house" in the context of John 14:1-3, the Upper Room Discourse? My point
was simply that such terminology from Jesus had previously clearly referred to the physical
Temple in Jerusalem.

John 2:16
16        And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My
Father's house a house of merchandise!"
(NKJ)

And, the phrase "house of the Lord" used hundreds of times in the Old Testament refers to the
Temple in Jerusalem, including the "Millennial Temple." My point is that the weight of evidence
favors an earthly Millennial setting from Jesus' statement about preparing a place in "my Father's
house" for the disciples. And this agrees with another statement Jesus made at this same "Last
Supper" address, which clearly had the same disciples, AND the Millennial Kingdom" in view.

Luke 22
17        Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among
yourselves;
18        "for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
comes." ...
28        "But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.
29        " And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,
30        "that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."
(NKJ)

This is what Jesus had in view in THE UPPER ROOM DISCOURSE, the Millennial Kingdom. Can you
please explain to me how the groom is supposed to feast for the seven years of the tribulation
with us, when Jesus clearly said above that He is NOT going to partake of the wine again UNTIL
the Kingdom comes??? And, please don't claim that the "Kingdom" begins at the beginning of the
tribulation. That is simply not true. Isaiah 2 clearly says that THE LORD ALONE will be exalted in
the "Day of the Lord." Therefore, the Anti-Christ's being worshipped as God CANNOT occur durring
this time. ANd the cosmic signs being AFTER th etribulation but BEFORE the Day of the Lord prove
that they do NOT overlap.

Jason>>> Besides, it makes no sense whatsoever that Christ will go away to build us a place and
come back for us in order to take us there... to the temple. He coming back to take us to
heaven. Even little Children know that.

Tim> Yes, children are quite gullible. But, maybe I missed something. I don't see anything in John
14 about BUILDING anything. What I see is the word "prepare."

Jason>>>
John 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to
prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that
where I am, there ye may be also.

The phrase, "I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself;
that where I am, there ye may be also" is what a groom would say to the bride when he would
leave to build the bridal chamber where they would consummate their marriage week.

Tim> Would you please provide some historical documentation to validate your claim that this is
what the groom said to the bride, rather than repeating the rumor?

Jason>>> Speaking of Rev 19, the author says simply:
And that passage does not fit the pre-trib model either.

Rev 19 describes the end of the tribulation, the Glorious Return of Christ from out of heaven with
all of his Saints, just as the bride and groom would emerge to the wedding feast at the end of the
bridal week. It fits the wedding & pretrib model exactly. It does not describe the rapture, this is
plain, but the return.

Tim> You are making up your Jewish wedding custom model to fit your pre-conceived notion of a
pre-trib rapture! As I pointed out before, the bride and groom would go immediately after the
ceremony into the wedding chamber to consumate their marriage. They would emerge within an
hour or so with the bloody sheet (to prove that the bride was a virgin) which was presented to
the bride's family. Then the feasting would commence for seven days. This DOES NOT FIT the
pre-trib model, BECAUSE at the very end of the tribulation, the anouncement is made, "the
marriage of the Lamb is come (has finally arrived) His wife hath made herself ready." So, at the
very end of the tribulation, the wedding has NOT EVEN BEGUN YET! You must do grammatical
gymnastics to place the wedding in Rev. 4, when the text clearly places it AFTER Rev. 19!

Jason>>> This chapter is not proof for the post trib rapture model, because there is neither a
rapture nor a resurrection in Rev 19, which there should be if either event were happening at this
time. If the author understood this, I do not believe he would have quoted the ignorant skeptic
which started this article.

Tim> I am the "ignorant skeptic" who wrote this article. And, maybe you should read Matt.
24:29-31 which says Jesus's elect are going to be gathered together "immediately after the
tribulation." And maybe you should read Rev. 20:4-6 which says the "first resurrection" includes
the tribulation saints, and therefore occurs at the end of the tribulation. Your argument from the
silence of the rapture in Revelation 19 is meaningless. Other passages supply the details of this at
the end of the tribulation. Using your logic, I could easily call you "ignorant" because you read a
rapture into 1 Cor. 15 which does not even mention one! It only mentions a resurrection! You rely
exclusively on ONE VERSE in the entire Bible for the idea of being "caught up," 1 Thess. 4:17! Are
you prepared to say that because no other verses mention such a catching up (except Matt.
24:31 - which you deny refers to the rapture) that no other passages in the Bible apply to the
rapture? What about Rev. 4 that you referred to above? Just where is the "rapture" of believers
there????? In fact, since we are arguing from silence, please show me where the rapture is
mentioned in Revelation at all! Am I to infer that there is to be no rapture??? How about showing
me a "resurrection" prior to the "first resurrection" in Rev. 20! Am I to assume that there is no
resurrection before this one?? You bet I am, because it clearly says "THIS IS THE FIRST
RESURRECTION." And 1 Thess 4 says "the dead in Christ shall rise first" and then "we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up..."

Jason>>> (quoting me) The expression "the Bride hath made herself ready" implies that the Groom
is about to go and fetch her! (end quote)

But he ignores verse 1, in which people are already in heaven, which is fully consistent with the
pretribulation rapture model which says they got there seven years ago!

Tim> There are Christians in heaven right now! Am I to assume that the pre-trib rapture has
already occurred??? And besides, who are the ones Jesus will bring WITH HIM when he comes to
rapture the living??? And how did they get to be "with Him?" Is there a pre- pre-trib rapture
too???

1Thes 4:14-17
14        For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those
who sleep in Jesus.
15        For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until
the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16        For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an
archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17        Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to
meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
(NKJ)

It looks to me like the rapture is BOTH a coming WITH the saints as well as a coming FOR the
saints! The ones in Rev. 19 in heaven are the same ones mentioned here coming with Jesus!

Jason>>> Next he says: (quoting me) If pre-tribbers are right, that Jesus was referring to heaven
as the seven years in the "huppah" in John 14:1-3, then a pre-trib rapture, where Christ takes
the Bride to heaven for seven years, requires that the Groom be intimate with the Bride BEFORE
the wedding ceremony!(end quote)

And this is absolutely right and correct, as I have asserted previously in this article. The
consumation, the union of the bride and groom, is at the start of the bridal week, at the start of
the millinnium, at the start of the tribulation, right at the pretribulation rapture. In the ceremony,
note, the bride has already become the WIFE of the groom by verse 7.

Tim> The marriage ceremony has not yet occurred in Rev. 19, because the words "is come" do
NOT mean already took place seven years ago! It means THE TIME FOR THE WEDDING HAS
FINALLY ARRIVED!!! Furthermore, the term "wife" was used of the woman from the day of the
betrothal agreement. This is seen in the story of Jesus' birth, where the angel told Joseph not to
be afraid to take Mary his WIFE (prior to the marriage). The same word and meaning is here in
Rev. 19. The "wife" is the espoused wife, NOT the married wife.

Jason>>> The author is plainly confused by placing modern American weddings into the prophetic
interpretation. Actually, in the Jewish Wedding, the bride and groom are legally married at the
time the marriage contract is signed, and this may be about a year before the groom comes for
his bride, but they would live apart until the bridal week. It would be most innappropriate,
actually, for the bride and groom to remain chaste during the bridal week after having waited so
long for such a moment. How can the author expect a new bride and groom to remain shut up for
a week in a bedroom or bridal chamber, being legally married, and not consumate the marriage?

Tim> You are assuming a pre-trib rapture scenario, and so missed my point entirely! My point was
that Rev. 19's statement that "the marriage of the Lamb is come, his wife hath made herself
ready" PROVES that the ceremony has not yet occurred! The expression "marriage of the Lamb"
refers to the wedding ceremony itself AT THE BEGINNING of the feast week! So, the fact that the
ceremony had not yet occurred, and this statement is in the context of the extreme end of the
tribulation, the logical inferrence is that the wedding ceremony is AFTER the tribulation, not at
the beginning!

Jason>>> When the groom comes for his bride to steal her away, this is a noisy, public, action.
Blowing trumpets at midnight in a large wedding party to announce the arrival of the groom is
sure to wake the neighbors! So there is a public announcement of what is going on, it's not like
the bride and groom are doing anything obscene. Finally, the marriage supper or wedding feast
would be inapproprate at midnight, it happens the next week.

Tim> Now, you are showing your ignorance of Jewish wedding customs! The groom comes with his
wedding party for the bride around midnight, on the prescribed day (which the bride and her
family knows beforehand). The bride comes out to meet him, and they all proceded back to the
bride and groom's future home (which was prepared by the groom). The wedding ceremony
commenced immediately, and then the bride and groom would enter the chamber and consumate
the act by being intimate. Then, both would emerge in an hour or so, and the seven days of
feasting began. This is the scenario supported BOTH by Scripture and historical documentation.
And it cannot support the pre-trib scheme on several counts.

1. The bride and her assistiants (and the bride's family) knew ahead of time the day the groom
would arrive for the bride. They all gathered at the bride's house on that evening to await the
groom. He would come with a noisy procession with lamps and music to the house of the bride.
Several times, runners were sent on ahead to anounce that the groom was on his way. (So, the
bride and her family and friends had full knowledge of the time, and ample warning that the
groom's coming was imminent). This fact destroys the pre-trib idea of "imminence" where the
bride is alleged to expect the groom's arival at any time during the entire engagement year!

2. The ONLY passage in the Bible that specifically and plainly mentions the wedding of Messiah
(Rev. 19) clearly places the marriage AFTER the tribulation. The pre-trib view makes Jesus out to
be a fornicator! because, since the Bride is ready AFTER the tribulation, and the wedding is
AFTER the tribulation, If Jesus takes the bride into the wedding chamber 7 years before the
"marriage of the Lamb," then he is a fornicator!

Jason>>> What does NOT fit the pattern is having a large public marriage supper, and then
having the groom and bride go off for a week. How could the groom come for his bride as a thief if
the public display were first? It makes no sense! Nevertheless, this is the American tradition, not
the Jewish tradtion. If the author argues it is innappropriate to have in view a Jewish tradtion,
how much less appropriate to impose American traditions into the Bible text!

Tim> I am NOT interpreting this in view of any American tradition, only Jewish tradition. And the
fact that the feast is seven days long is proven from historical accounts as well as the story of
Samson. You are trying to force Rev. 19 into a pre-trib scheme, rather than simply accept what it
plainly says.

Jason>>> I fully agree with the author that...

The marriage supper occurs AFTER the tribulation, on earth, not in heaven. And, I agree with the
author that the Spring Feasts of the Lord were prophetic of Christ's first advent, and that the Fall
Feasts of the Lord are prophetic of the second advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. And I agree, that
the Day of Atonement is prophetic of Satan's defeat. In contrast, I see the rapture happening on
the Feast of Trumpets seven years before.

Tim> I'm glad you agree. But, your mistaken notion that the marriage feast is at the end of the
seven days is wrong. It is the feast that is seven days long! (Judges 14:12-16) Since you agree
that Jesus fulfilled the spring feasts at His first coming, and it is clear that a single "day" of the
feasts was fulfilled as a "day" in Jesus' fulfillment, why do you insist on making the seven "days"
of the marriage feast into seven years??? Why not apply the same principle to the seven day
feast that follows Rosh Hashanna and Yom Kippur?? The Feast of Tabernacles IS the wedding
feast of Messiah! And it will commence right after the rapture "immediately after the tribulation."

Jason>>> In his final paragraph, the author makes a plea for evidence for "where the groom is
alleged to arrive for his bride completely unexpected and kidnap her away secretly".

I will point him to the following verses, Jugdes 21, Deut 22:25-29, Exodus 22:15-17. In addition, I
suggest he read my webpage explaining those verses, among others, in the context of the
subject at hand, the pretribulation rapture.

Tim> Well, so now not only does your theory make Jesus a fornicator, but two of the three
passages you provide to support the "secret kidnapping" of the bride are actually dealing with
RAPE! Are you suggesting Jesus is also a rapist??? The other passage you provided has nothing to
do with the groom's alleged coming for his bride (to whom he was already espoused). So, it seems
my challenge is still unanswered!

In Christ, Tim

Click Here to go Back to the Home Page:
Online Bible Prophecy Studies;
Please feel free to email me, Jason, at
group@spintheweb.com
if you have any questions or comments on this article,
or on the subject of the pretribulation rapture,
or if you wish to share any scriptures with me.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .