Ron,

Thank you for your honest reply.

It is a question that I have wondered about for a long time.

It seemed to be, at least to me, a missing point in the "partial rapture" teaching, that shouldn't be left disconnected.

I knew about scriptures, like those to five different churches:

Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Revelation 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Which looked at collectively, may appear to show the possibility that some Christians are caught up, and some remain for the tribulation.

Also, with these, that particular partial rapture teaching doesn't do violence to the context, either.

Especially considering that the messages are to Christians in different churches, and can be looked at as fittingly describing John's time as well as the end of the church age.

But a different passage that some use, about the ten virgins, is very different.

Matthew 24 describes, in a very Jewish, Israel-centric perspective, things in the tribulation, culminating in the coming of the Son of man.

Matthew 25 continues with the same very Jewish, Israel-centric perspective, with line 1 and 14 referring to the kingdom at the time of the coming of Jesus.

And then the chapter continues, and concludes, in line 31- 46 with the judgment of the sheep and goat nations at the beginning of the kingdom.

There is a great difference between Jesus' church and Jesus' kingdom.

Not seeing any distinction has led some to considering replacement theology, which is not correct.

Whereas noticing the distinction, has cleared up a number of things, like the transition of the book of Acts.

A transition of the church beginning as a completely Jewish body of believers in Jesus, their Messiah, who then still continue to worship at the temple, and follow requirements of the law.

To where Gentiles hear the gospel from Peter in chapter 10, and get saved.

Then Paul is given the ministry of the gospel to the uncircumcision.

Then in Acts 15, the question of whether Gentile believers need to be circumcised is decided.

So, close to the end of the transition, in the 60's, when Paul comes to Jerusalem, James and the elders said:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Then they requested of Paul:

Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

  26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Paul agreed, purified himself, and entered the temple, where the evening and morning sacrifices were still being offered.

Neither Paul, James, nor the elders mentioned that there was anything wrong with the Jewish believers in Jesus going to the temple and being zealous of the law.

However, that was not to have been placed on the Gentile believers:

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

The transition is finally completed when shortly after both Peter and Paul are put to death by the Romans, the Romans then also destroy the temple and Jerusalem, and scatter the Jews.

From that time forward, there is only faith in Jesus by anyone, Jew or Gentile, who believes the gospel, now being part of the church.

At the end of the church age, it doesn't appear to be a reverse transition, again spanning a generation, but rather a sudden change, from the church back to Israel.

There will again be the temple, in the tribulation.

There will also be a collective worship by both Jews and Gentiles, but sadly that time it will be the worship of the antichrist.

So, that sudden change, at least I believe, will be the sudden catching away of the believers at the end of the church age, of both Jewish and Gentile believers.

Therefore, it seems to me, that a partial rapture explanation of the ten virgins at the beginning of Matthew 25,

would require the 5 virgins without oil to be in a reverse transition period in the tribulation, rather than at the beginning of the kingdom.

And that does not fit with the rest of the chapter, especially following on the conclusion of chapter 24.

However, going back to the scriptures mentioned to the 5 churches, if they indicate some not being caught up at the blessed hope, they would no longer be a remnant of the church.

It is important to note that after Revelation chapter 3, the word church, or churches, is not mentioned again in the chapters about the tribulation, or the chapter about the kingdom.

But only, finally as a conclusion in the last chapter.

So, if any believer is left behind at the blessed hope, they would not be a remnant church, nor a tribulation church, and not a church at all - the church will have been caught up.

They would still continue as believers, but they would be going through the tribulation.

There will be a number of people during the tribulation, who will put their faith in Jesus, and many will be killed for that.

So, would a "left behind" believer end up giving the gospel during the tribulation?

I have long considered that a dispensational view of the scriptures, is not an attempt to simply divide up timelines,  like in some college course.

But rather noticing how the LORD deals differently with people in different circumstances.

Clearly, the relationship changed dramatically after Adam sinned.

It changed dramatically, again, at the time of Noah, then again at the tower of Babel.

Then there was the LORD's relationship with the patriarchs, particularly the LORD's unconditional covenant with Abraham.

But then there was a new relationship at the time of the Exodus, based upon the covenant the LORD made with Israel at Sinai.

If that is called the dispensation of the law, then that dispensation ends at the conclusion of Daniel's 70th week, not in the midst of that week at the killing of the Messiah.

After, and because of, the resurrection of the Messiah, a new dispensation began, not previously understood, that being the dispensation of the church.

That dispensation began with the Jews in Jerusalem, but transitioned to both Jew and Gentile.

So, the destruction of the temple was not the end of the dispensation of law, but rather the end of the transition of the church from all Jewish, to both Jew and Gentile in Christ.

There still remains the conclusion of the dispensation of law, the final half of Daniel's 70th week (or to some, the entire 70th week).

That does not require a transition, but appears to be started back again, as soon as the church age dispensation ends with the blessed hope.

So, any believer not caught up at the blessed hope, would no longer be part of the church, as the church will be in heaven with Jesus, and not on the earth.

If any of them would be of Jewish ancestry, would they simply then go under the law during the tribulation?

Or if they would be of Gentile ancestry, what would they do during the tribulation?

.