Scott Clark on u-Tube’s “the Revelation 12 thief legendado”, makes the case for the rapture “harpazo” of the church based on the 1 Thess’ context of the thief in the night. In doing so he contends that the thief coming of the Lord before Tribulation confuses Israel, who is the woman in Revelation 12, but that it does not confuse the church who he says is the son of the woman in Revelation 12. This son is according to him the church, who is raptured.
So Israel he says will be confused and will not know the signs of the Lords coming when the bride is raptured — “harpazoed”. But just how confused is Scott Clark on these points?
First in his argument he assumes the day of the Lord to be the tribulation, yet Paul distinctly says: 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the day of the Lord) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
The day of the Lord Paul says will not come until there is a falling away (apostasy) and a revealing of the Antichrist in the Temple of God. This revealing occurs in midstream tribulation. Daniel confirmed this and Jesus also confirmed it when He used the signs of both Daniel and Joel’s prophecies to teach about His coming to gather His saints in Matt 24.
Secondly, Scott says that the son of the woman (Israel) in Rev. 12 is the church who is caught up. He claims this to be a secondary meaning of this prophecy. In its first meaning the son of course is Jesus. Is he right about the second meaning? As they say anything is possible but, if this is right, then this discovery does not equal a pre-Trib Rapture, but instead would substantiate a different truth about when the rapture will occur. He claims it to be pre-Trib. So what does this passage actually teach if the harpazoed son is Israel’s son? Listen:
Revelation 12:6, 17 Then the woman (Israel) fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
17. So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
After telling us that the woman (Israel) would be protected for 1260 days from Satan, John then says that her children; her offspring; her “church” which Clark says is represented in this woman’s son (her offspring) will be attacked by Satan. It is these offspring who are the point of this attack by Satan. And this attack takes place during the time of Israel’s protection. This attack of Satan on Israel’s offspring takes place during Tribulation.
So if the “son” of the woman represents the church who is harpazoed, then the son must be Raptured following the Tribulation. He is also her offspring. It is the offspring of the woman, who are to be present in the tribulation during the time of Israel’s protection from Satan.
So if we accept Scott Clarks premises that this passage speaks of the rapture of the church, then we must also accept that the passage teaches the timing of this rapture to be post-Tribulational.
I attempt to answer all of the questions surrounding this coming rapture in my book, AND THEN THE END SHALL COME. I think you would find it interesting.
Or, You can read the articles on this website.