Page 166 - The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord

General Posttribulational Arguments
used of both events. Apokalupsis is used of the revelation of
Christ to the church at the Rapture in a number of passages
(ICor. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 4:13). The church will “see him as
he is” (1 John 3:2). The world will see the glorified Christ when
He returns after the Tribulation (Luke 17:30; 2 Thess. 1:7; cf.
Matt. 24:27-30).
Epiphancia, translated “appearing,” refers to the appear­
ing of Christ. It is used of the incarnation of the Son of God
(Luke 1:79; 2 Tim. 1:10). As related to the coming of Christ,
reference is found in 2 Timothy 4:1 and Titus 2:13. Many
prctribulationists interpret 2 Timothy 4:1 and Titus 2:13 as a
reference to the coming of Christ after the Tribulation. A
careful examination of these texts, however, indicates nothing
specific that would demonstrate that they refer to a posttribu-
lational coming. At the Rapture, or immediately thereafter,
Christ will judge both the living and the dead as indicated in
2 Timothy 4:1. The passage implies that there is going to be a
separate judgment in relation to His kingdom that could very
well refer to the coming after the Tribulation. In Titus 2:13
the expression “the glorious appearing” has been taken to
refer to the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom because
of the reference to the word glorious. However, the church will
see the glory of Christ at the coming of the Lord for His church
before the Tribulation, and there is no valid reason the term
glorious appearing should not be a reference to the Rapture.
While it may be presuming too much to assert dogmatically
that all references to epiphaneia in connection with the coming
of the Lord are references to the Rapture, it is also fair to state
that there is no definite proof that any of the references refer to
the coming of Christ after the Tribulation. The word epi­
phaneia is a general not a technical word, and its contextual
usage must determine its meaning relative to the Rapture.
The posttribulational argument on these words proves
only that they are used of both events. It does not prove that
both comings are one and the same, and it is therefore worth-
173