"Technical terms" are nouns or descriptive noun phrases that are understood by the intended audience to refer to specific things even without explanation within the context. For example, the word "rapture" in modern prophetic speech is understood to refer to the coming of Christ for His Church. We do not normally need to refer to the context in which the word "rapture" might be found in modern Christian books to find out what "rapture" means. We simply assume the writer is referring to the coming of Christ for His Church. The word "tribulation" is another word that has taken on a technical meaning in modern Evangelical jargon. However, in the Bible, "tribulation" alone is not a technical term, because it is frequently used of troubles in general and not merely THE "tribulation." When the Bible means to indicate THE "tribulation," the words "great tribulation" are used (cf. Rev. 7:14).

In English, we use the definate article (the) sometimes to distinguish between a technical term and a non-technical term. My usage of the word "tribulation" above demonstrates this. By my adding "THE" to tribulation, we understand a distinction between general "tribulation" and a specific "tribulation" known to us. However, this is not always the case in Greek.

What can make a term a technical term is it's repeated (or frequent) reference to the same thing or event in Scripture. Also, a term that is not clearly explained in the context shows that the writer assumed his readers knew what it meant. There was therefore common knowledge of the term between writer and reader. Such terms are not hard to spot and identify. We can discern technical terms from Scripture by their LACK of explanations within the context (the writer ASSUMES that the hearer or reader would understand the term). Secondly, by the EXCLUSIVE (or nearly exclusive) usage of the term in referrence to a single event.

We have excluded the word "tribulation" from being a technical term in Scripture because it is often used of tribulations in general, without referring to THE "tribulation." Therefore, we need to review the CONTEXT where this word is found in order to decide if it is referring to THE "tribulation" or to some other kind of "tribulation." Because of this, we cannot ASSUME that when "tribulation" alone is used it means THE "tribulation." We therefore cannot rightly use the following verses to prove that the rapture is post-trib.

John 16:33
33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
(KJV)

Acts 14:22
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
(KJV)

However, the over-all usage of technical terms in contexts dealing with the second coming weigh heavily in favor of the post-trib position (and against all other rapture views including pre-wrath). These terms were understood by the first century believers to refer to a particular coming of the Lord without explanations in the context of it being pre- or post-trib. For example, The Day of the Lord, The Day of Christ, The Day of Jesus Christ, The Day of the Lord Jesus, The Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Day of God. These terms are used by Paul and others with the expectation that their readers knew that they referred to a specific single event. For example:

Phil 1:10
10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;
(KJV)

Phil 2:16
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
(KJV)

Paul assumed his readers knew what "day" he was speaking about. He did not explain in either verse whether this day was the coming of Christ BEFORE or AFTER the tribulation. He assumed his readers knew that the "Day of Christ" was the day for which they were watching and waiting. Therefore, it is right to associate it with the rapture (but not necessarily a pre-trib rapture). However, in 2 Thess. 2:1-3, Paul indicated that the Antichrist must come BEFORE the "Day of Christ." So, IF "Day of Christ" was a technical term, it is a POST-TRIB technical term, and the above verses are referring to a post-trib rapture.

Paul used other variations on the name of Christ, when referring to His "Day," as the future time for which believers watch and wait.

1 Cor 1:8
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

2 Cor 1:14
14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(KJV)

Phil 1:6
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
(KJV)

All of these terms are given without explanation. Logically, all refer to the same "day," because in each case this "day" seems to be the day on which believers had placed their hope, ie, Christ's coming for His Church.

Likewise, the term "Day of the Lord" is simply another variation on the name of Christ. It is His day (Luke 17:24). The term is used in several contexts, each time the writer expected his readers to understand the specific day to which he refered without giving any explanation (pre- or post-trib). This is very problematic for pre-tribbers, because, if the Apostles were pre-trib (and expected two future comings of Christ, they would need to indicate to their hearers or readers whether they were referring to a pre- or post-trib event. Also, the term "Day of the Lord" was used repeatedly in the Old Testament in referrence to Christ's post-trib coming to set up His Kingdom (see: Isa. 13:1-13, Joel 3:9-17, Zech. 14:1-6). And, it is clearly AFTER the tribulation (cf. Matt. 24:29 & Acts 2:20). Yet, in 1 Thess. 5:1,2, Paul used the term 'Day of the Lord' for the rapture.

Pre-tribbers have in the past (not so much anymore) tried to draw a distinction between the "Day of Christ" (pre-trib rapture) and the "Day of the Lord" (post-trib coming). However, as pointed out above, this distinction fails because we find the term "Day of Christ" placed AFTER the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:1-3) and the term "Day of the Lord" referring to the day for which Christians watch (1 Thess. 5:1,2). Either the day for which Christians are watching is the post-trib event, or else these are not technical terms. But, if they are not, then the passages are utterly confusing, because the writer ASSUMED that his audience KNEW which day he meant. The pre-tribber is forced to the awkward conclusion that Paul sometimes used the terms "Day of Christ" and "Day of the Lord" indiscriminately to refer to BOTH the (alleged) pre-trib rapture and post-trib coming, and expected his audience to decipher which he meant with no clue in the context.

The Elusive Search for a Biblical Pre-Trib Term for the Rapture
There is a conspicuous lack of a single technical term in the Bible for a pre-trib rapture (as distinct from the second coming). Pre-tribbers have frantically searched for one, but always come up short. Having failed the "Day of Christ/Day of the Lord" distinction, they have tried to draw a distinction between the "rapture" and "revelation" of Christ. Yet, when we test ANY kind of alleged technical term in Scripture, the Bible fails to produce a single consistent technical term that could be applied to a pre-trib rapture. Why? The obvious answer is the rapture is not distinct from the second coming, but is part of the same event! And the New Testament writers had no need to distinguish between two separate comings.

The modern word "rapture" is the word most often used as a technical term today by pre-tribbers. Their uniform use of this term demonstrates the absolute necessity of having SOME kind of technical term for the rapture if it is indeed a distinct event. But, this word is NOT a technical term in the Bible. The word "rapture" is from the Latin text, and is the word found in the following verse.

1 Thess 4:17
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (Greek - harpazo, Latin - rapiemur) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(KJV)

However, such a word CANNOT be a technical term for an alleged pre-trib rapture because;
a) it is a verb and not a noun in Scripture
b) it is usually used of other things in Scripture besides the catching up of believers at Christ's coming (cf. Matt. 11:12, Matt. 12:29, Matt. 13:19, John 6:15, John 10:12,28,29, Acts 8:39, Acts 23:10, 2 Cor. 12:2,4, Jude 1:23, Rev. 12:5). Only once is it used in connection with Christ's coming.

Other proposed technical terms also fail to refer exclusively to a pre-trib event, but are also used in clearly post-trib contexts.

As pointed out already, pre-tribbers have tried to distinguish between "rapture" and "revelation." The word "rapture" fails the test for the above reasons. But, how does the term "revelation" stack up as being exclusively post-trib (to distinguish the post-trib coming from an alleged pre-trib coming)? If the pre-trib theory were true, we would expect that the term "revelation" would ONLY be used of the post-trib event (as opposed to the alleged pre-trib rapture), and NEVER of the day Christians anticipate. Yet, this is not the case.

There are three main Greek nouns used in Scripture for the coming of Christ.
1. parousia (Strong's #3952) simply means "coming" or physical "presence."
2. epiphaneia (Strong's #2015) means "appearing" or "brightness" with emphasis on His glory.
3. apokalupsis (Strong's #602) means "revelation" or "unveiling."

All of these are nouns used as technical terms in Scripture, while assuming that the reader understands the coming to which the words refer. However, the Scriptures use each of these terms for BOTH the Christians' hope AND the post-trib event. The obvious conclusion is they are the same event.

Jesus' COMING (Parousia) as our hope: 1 Cor. 15:23, 1 Thess. 2:19, 1 Thess. 4:15, 1 Thess. 5:23, 2 Thess. 2:1, James 5:7,8, 2 Pet. 3:4, 1 John 2:28
Jesus' COMING (Parousia) as the post-trib event: Matt. 24:3,27,39, 1 Thess. 3:13, 2 Thess. 2:8

Jesus' APPEARING (Epiphaneia) as our hope: 1 Tim. 6:14, II Tim. 4:1,8
Jesus' APPEARING (Epiphaneia) as the post-trib event: 2 Thess. 2:8, Titus 2:13

Jesus' REVELATION (Apokalupsis) as our hope: 1 Cor. 1:7, 1 Pet. 1:7,13, 1 Pet. 4:13
Jesus' REVELATION (Apokalupsis) as the post-trib event: 2 Thess. 1:7

The bottom line is this: Post-tribbers can rightly claim ALL of the following terms as technical terms referring to the one and only future coming of Christ: Day of Christ, Day of Jesus Christ, Day of the Lord Jesus, Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, Day of the Lord, parousia (His coming), epiphaneia (His appearing), & apokalupsis (His revelation). Pre-tribbers are forced to abandon all of these as technical terms for the rapture (because they are used at least once in a clear post-trib context). Instead they wrongly use a verb (harpazo - "caught up") as a noun (rapture) in order to INVENT a non-biblical technical term for an alleged pre-trib coming that is supposed to be distinguished from the second coming (with absolutely no precident in Biblical usage). That there is no Biblical term for an alleged pre-trib coming should give pre-tribbers considerable pause that they may be forcing the Scriptures to fit into their preconceived mold.

Misuse of the Word "Church" as a Technical Term
A second abuse of biblical terminology by pre-tribbers is their false and misleading usage of the word "Church." Their usage is governed by the dispensational parimeters they have erected. To a pre-tribber, the "Church" is strictly a technical term referring to Christians saved after Pentecost and prior to the tribulation. Believers prior to Pentecost were not part of the "Church" nor are those saved after the beginning of the tribulation. Hence, the term "Church age" (a non-biblical term) has been coined to delineate the parameters of the "Church" on earth. But, once again, the Scriptures transgress the pre-trib jargon. Or more acurately, pre-trib jargon transgresses the Scriptural precidents and norms of terminology.

Jesus gave instructions in Matthew 18:17 regarding Church discipline, within a book that pre-tribbers strenuously claim is not related to the Church, and was written prior to the Church being established in the dispensational scheme. Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:38, referred to the Jewish believers under Moses as "the Church in the wilderness." In Hebrews 2:12, Paul quoted Psalm 22:22, which speaks of the Old Testament Jews in worship, as "the Church." In most English Bibles, this Psalm is translated "congregation" rather than "Church." However, the quote was from the Greek version of the Old Testament used by the early Church called the Septuagint (LXX). The New Testament writers frequently quoted this version in their New Testament books, even many times where it reads differently from the Hebrew Text we have today. In the LXX, the Greek word for "Church" (ekklesia) is found repeatedly in the Old Testament, usually referring to the people of God (Israel). Since the Apostles and the early Christians to whom they wrote used this version, and since this version uses "Church" (ekklesia) for the Old Testament saints repeatedly, it is not likely that the early Christians had the same understandng of this term that modern pre-tribbers have. Once again we find pre-tribbers being forced to use artificial technical terminology that is NOT in agreement with the biblical precident and common usage. We don't let cults or Catholics get away with such subtle shell games with biblical words, why do we permit it by pre-tribbers? The simple fact is, the wrong usage of terminology by pre-tribbers, and artificial distinctions in their jargon, are glaring indicators of a system that is being forced on the Scriptures.

Go to: Dispensational Foundations