Luke17 verses 22-37 (excluding verse 25). Is it about Christ’s 2nd coming or the rapture?

In Luke 17:20-37, Jesus answers the Pharisees’ question on “when the kingdom of God should come”. Rather than addressing the time feature, Jesus chooses to focus his response on the manner of his second coming.

The Scriptures seem to present the topic of the second coming from two different perspectives, which at a first glance may appear contradictory:

1. The kingdom comes “not with observation” (verse 20) and the kingdom “comes as a thief in the night” (2 Thessalonians 5:2) when he comes to gather his saints (Mark 13:27).

2. He comes as the lightening (Luke 17:24); he comes “with a great sound of trumpet” (Matthew 24:31); and he “comes with ten thousands of his saints” (Jude 14).

These Scriptures can be harmonized when we understand that Jesus’ second presence includes a work of preparation for the setting-up his kingdom. Initially, the world is unaware of the signs of his presence, but these signs can be discerned by watchful Christians. A special work of separation (the wheat and the tares parable) will take place and Jesus will have a final reckoning with his servants. Hence the words “one will be taken and one shall be left” (verse 34) indicate that some will be privileged to be led out of the worldly systems with their impending destruction to a condition of enlightenment and protection.

Thus Jesus gives the sign: “as it was in the days of Noah, so will be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:26) and “likewise as it was in the days of Lot” (verse 28). Some faithful ones will be like Noah, a preacher of righteousness, who take heed to the signs of trouble ahead and prepare their salvation. Others, less diligent, are like Lot, who have to be pulled out of the impending destruction in the last minute. Like in the parable of the ten virgins, we must strive to be of the wise class.

Jesus hints that the second coming is most of all a lesson on personal preparation, watchfulness and character development rather than a sensationalism of instant phenomena in the sky.  The scriptures of 1 Thessalonians 4 are symbols and are not referring to a literal “rapture.” (The word “rapture” is not even found in the Bible.) The voice of an archangel, the trump, and the clouds foretell the shattering of church and social orders.

There will be an impending disaster upon the world, a time of “great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world” (Matthew 24:21), but the purpose of this trouble and of Jesus’ second coming is to destroy the evil structures of the present evil world and establish God’s kingdom on earth. Jesus and his Church will bring about the “times of restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) and the blessing of all the families of the earth.

Who is antichrist in the Bible?

The word antichrist comes untranslated from the compound Greek word antichristos; “anti” meaning "in opposition to,” or, “in place of” and “Christ” meaning "anointed." Consequently, in order to understand what anti-Christ means —“a position in place of Christ”— we need to determine who the real “Anointed” is. Clearly, Jesus was “anointed” with the holy spirit at his baptism. (Matt. 3:16) Redeemed followers of Jesus, who also receive the anointing of the holy spirit, are considered part of Christ's body (I Cor. 12:12). Therefore, Christ is composed of the head, Jesus, and His body members, spirit-begotten followers of Jesus. However, these members are not now reigning (I Cor. 4:8) These body members are suffering now (Matt. 16:24).  Yet the scriptures promise that Christ will reign (with His church) over the nations for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:3). 

The antichrist has a parallel structure. It is a group of people with a leader and many members who follow that leader. Our Lord warned that many false Christs would come (Matt. 24:24) Of greatest importance is the fact that historically Christian believers have identified the Catholic Church as the Antichrist (see the forward to the King James Bible where antichrist is linked to the man of sin and Popish Persons). The Catholic Church, through the Pope, teaches that to receive forgiveness and salvation, a priest is necessary to sacrifice Christ at the altar in the Mass. They teach that every person must eat the body and blood of Jesus at the mass, do penance, and be forgiven of a priest. Pope Boniface VIII decreed, "We declare, say, define, pronounce it necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary, a standard Roman Catholic authority, under papal power, article 2 reads, " the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven, of earth, and of hell…he occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ; so that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God…The pope is, as it were, God on earth…" Popes Innocent and Jacobatius state that "the pope can do nearly all that God can do,…" Today, some say that the Catholic Church has changed, but it is the constant claim of Papacy that its doctrines are unchangeable; that the decrees of its popes and councils are infallible.

Additionally, the Catholic Church teaches they reigned a 1,000 years as the Holy Roman Empire from 800 to 1800AD.  During this period, hundreds of thousands of non-Catholics were tortured, brutally murdered, and burned at the stake. This was certainly not Christ's kingdom!

Feeling the sting of Protestant criticism regarding “antichrist,” Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) a Spanish Jesuit theologian, from the University of Salamanca sought to remove the papacy and the Catholic Church from consideration as the Antichrist (as an act of countering the Protestant Reformation).  Ribera began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, proposing that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse apply to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3½ literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. Among many Christians today variations of Ribera’s thesis have been accepted.  We must strongly disagree with this rewrite of history.