<<The big thing you are overlooking is that Mt 24:29-31 forces the coming of
the day of the Lord to a post-tribulational setting, not to a mid-trib
one. Note Christ says, "but immediately after the tribulation of those
days" (v. 29, indicating the great tribulation has run its course and is
over), "the sun shall be darkened and the moon will not give its light."
Since this occurs before the day of the Lord begins (Joel 2:28ff), then
the day of the Lord does not come, arrive, begin, start (call it what you
will), until after the great tribulation is complete.>>
Actually I see Matt 24:29-31 as parallel to the fourth and fifth bowls of Rev
16 rather than the sixth seal of Rev 6. As I stated before I think that Joel
2:30-31 refers to signs before the climax of the day of the Lord, not its
beginning. I see the DOL as beginning with the first seal, being recognized
by man at the sixth seal and being climaxed at the return of Christ and the
>>The Granville Sharp rule came under serious criticism early on, and
serious questions seem to have plagued it for years. It does seem that so
many have abused it that its legitimacy or practicality is still under
question. Show me where it really has made a difference. In proving the
deity of Christ? Ha. We hardly need the rule to demonstrate that.
Besides, the Granville Sharp rule, if applied to
our discussion, would only support my contention, i.e., that the coming of
the Lord and our gathering together unto Him are one and the same event.
You notice, however, I never appealed to it, although you seem to assume I
Sharps rule has been misunderstood and misapplied, but that does not make it
invalid. The problem with most applications is that many apply the rule to
constructions other than those which have personal, singular, non-proper
substantives. Those constructions outside these three criteria have a broader
range of semantic categories. Dan Wallace wrote his dissertation on "The
Article with Multiple Substantives" construction (not just the rule) and
spends twenty pages on it in his grammar (270-290). Here is his comment on 2
"This text impacts the discussion in some American evangelical circles over
the time of the rapture. Many posttribulationists/non-dispensationalists have
considered the two to have the same referent precisely because of their
misunderstanding of Sharp's rule and its specific requirements.
Since the TSKS [the article + substantive + KAI + substantive] construction
involves impersonal substantives, the highest degree of doubt is cast upon
the probability of the terms referring to the same event. This is especially
the case since the terms look to concrete temporal referents (the parousia
and the gathering of the saints), for the identical category is unattested
for "concrete" impersonals in the NT.
This is not to say that one could not see a posttribulational rapture in the
text, for even if the words do not have an identical referent, they could
have simultaneous ones. Our only point is that because of the misuse of
syntax by some scholars, certain approaches to the theology of the NT have
often been jettisoned without a fair hearing."
Dan categorizes this verse as "second entity as a subset of the first." My
point is that whether you appeal to Sharp's rule or not, identical referents
is still the least likely possibility.