Jovial (7 June 2015)
"Francisco Ribera (1591): Was he Pre-Trib or Post-Trib?"

Francisco Ribera was one of the key figures of the counter reformation who wrote a book published in 1591 that was a commentary of the book of Revelation, called In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij.  The popular view of his day was Praeterism, and he was trying to advocate that the False Messiah, tribulation period, and Beast were described literally in Scripture, and were in the future. 

A lot of conflicting information is out there about what he said.  For example;

Keep looking, and you'll find multiple people who haven't read Ribera but biasedly post that Ribera taught the pre-trib rapture and others who also haven't read what he wrote, but biasedly claim he was post-trib.  Everyone does agree that he was Pre-Millenial though, and that his agenda was to convince protestants that the pope was not the anti-christ, but that the anti-christ was some future person, not the office of the pope, since that was the popular opinion among Protestants of his time.

What did he really say?  Well, I decided to find out for myself.  There is a place where he talks about *A* rapture, but the timing isn't pre-trib.  Its in his commentary on chapter 19 of Revelation, which discusses Armageddon and Messiah returning to earth and killing the False Messiah.  His discussion of a "rapture" is also a bit different from what you might expect.

Most agree there will be a resurrection and rapture at the second coming at Armegeddon, it is just a question of whether there will be ANOTHER RAPTURE before the tribulation.  That event occurs in Revelation chapter 19.  In Ribera's commentary on chapter 19, he says this....

Latin

English

Occidetur autem (sicut doctores tradunt) in monte Oliveti in papilione ae solio suo, illo in loco contra quem coelos Dominus ascendit .... Rapietur autem a daemonibus .... Dehiscet ergo terra subito, & vivus cum fuo Psuedo-propheta rapietur ad ignem gehennae. He will be put to death (as the teachers say) on Mount Olive in his pavilion on his throne....  This is the place against which the Lord of the Heavens will ascend [descend]. He will be raptured by the demons ...  Suddenly the earth will open, and alive with the false prophet they will be raptured to the fire of hell. 
Commentary on Chapter 19, page 589

I have omitted some rambling about trivial to focus on the main points here.  In other words, he is trying to say that the Antichrist will experience an anti-rapture.  While Scripture says "we who are still alive ...  will be caught up" (1 Thess 4:17), the analogy is that he will fall to hell.  Why he thinks it is necessary for demons to grab him when the force of gravity will do the job is something I am not sure about, and in some of the rambling I omitted via elipses he discusses whether they would do it at the order of Michael or Messiah or whatever trivia.

The context this appears in is a commentary on Revelation chapter 19, the return of Messiah to earth with the resurrected saints and those "caught up" (1 Thess 4:17) with them.  This is the only place he talks about a rapture of any kind.  So no , he did not promote a pre-trib rapture.  I found no place where he argued for or against a pre-trib rapture.

He does promote the idea this is a future event.  In fact at one point he says, "Qui sunt hi mille anni a persecutione Antichristi?" or "What are there; a thousand years from the persecution of the Antichrist?" (ibid, page 604)  He says this because he advocates the 6000 year theory in page 608 where he says that chapter 15 would begin 6,000 years from the beginning of the world.

Now Ribera may have missed something here.  We're told the False Messiah would be slain "with the breath of His mouth" in 2 Thess 2:8.  Rev 19 says,

"the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."  (Rev 19:20-21)

The False Messiah cannot be "the beast" if the False Messiah is slain and the beast is thrown alive into hell.  Daniel uses Beasts to represent political entities - nations.  So "the beast" may be more than one person; perhaps the various kings reigning with him or others further down the chain of command.

Ribera frequently quotes from early Church writers to prove his literal futuristic interpretation of Revelation, at least partly because he knew one objection he would get to his literal interpretation would be people arguing that "The Church has long held that Revelation is spiritual and we're in the Millenium". So he uses quotes from early Christians to support Pre-Millenialism to counter that expected argument.  In his day (16th century), the idea that the Millenium had already arrived was indeed the prevailing view among Catholics, while the prevailing view among Protestants was Yoachim's theory that the Pope was the Antichrist and they were living in 1,260 years of tribulation.  Both views put Revelation in a historical context instead of a future one.

There are people out there who haven't read Ribera's book that are telling others he was pre-trib, and some claiming he was post-trib.  Some people who are pre-trib count him as pre-trib in order to count another pre-Darby witness.  Other post-trib writers count him as the originator of the pre-trib doctrine.  But since he never taught a pre-trib rapture, both are wrong for different reasons.   The fact that so many writers can say so many contradictory things about what he wrote WITHOUT QUOTING A SENTENCE FROM HIS WRITINGS proves bias.  If you haven't read what he wrote, why argue in such a way as to make the main point of your argument to be the content of a book you haven't read?  It makes no sense.

Shalom,

Joe