The Lord was not expounding on Bible prophecy at that time, which He delegated to the apostles. Therefore no discussion of timing. Furthermore, the Rapture is always shown as being IMMINENT, not tied into a Tribulation period.
This is a fair enough point, but don't you think, then, that using these verses to lay claim to this: "
How could Darby invent the pre-tribulation Rapture when the Lord Jesus Christ stated it as an important divine promise back in John 14:1-3?"
..is overstating it a tad?
And, I would also agree that the Apostles are tasked with shedding the most light upon Christ's return. But, unlike you, I would say that this only leads us away from a Pre-tribulational Rapture. If 1 Cor 15 tells us that at Christ's return we shall be Raptured, but this is also the defeat of death, which we know cannot be before the Tribulation; and Matt 25 tells us that at Christ's return he shall sit and judge all living, just and unjust; and 1 Thess 4 tells us that at the return and Rapture the living and dead shall be raised together; and Rev 20 tells us that both just and unjust dead will be judged together (thus we surmize that both living and dead, just and unjust all come before the Throne of God at the same time and that time is at Christ's return, when he comes to Rapture his Saints); and then 2 Peter 3 tells us that at Christ's return the heavens shall pass away in fire.....then where do we find 'space' for a 7 year Tribulation? All these events, when we read them, are only stated as happening AT Christ's return. There is no mention of a first or second - second coming.
Plus, I should mention that in the Amillennial understanding, Christ's return is also 'imminent'.
At the same time there is no indication in that passage that He would return for the saints only after they had gone through a worldwide and unique Tribulation period. Had it been a necessity, He would have surely stated it, rather than saying "Let not your heart be troubled".
Uh, uh. You can't have it both ways. Either this passage is not explicitly talking about prophecy and therefore we cannot expect timing to come into it....or it is speaking about prophecy...in which case we are back to "it doesn't say ANYTHING specific about timing, one way or the other". Either way, you cannot use it to bolster you case.
What post-tribulationists fail to understand is the purpose and significance of the Tribulation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the Church). It is not the same as the trials, testings, and tribulations of Christians.
I understand perfectly well what Dispensationalists say the Tribulation is for, and that alarms me exceedingly. And I'll tell you why. Because by insisting upon this separation between Church and Israel, you are in effect refusing to acknowledge that Jesus Christ fulfilled all the promises that the Temple was meant to, all the promises the land was pointing to and all the promises that Israel failed to. The Temple was that which was supposed to cleanse the sins of the people and make God dwell among his people. Christ did that, and in doing that in a 100% more perfect way than the Temple ever did, made any further insistence upon a temple a sacrilege. The land was promised as an inheritance to those who held absolute faith and trust in God. It stood as a symbol of blessing and abundance from a loving God who promised to use a people to bless all nations. We see in scripture that no only does Israel fail to uphold covenant faith and trust with God, but that Paul himself tells us that this promise to Abraham has been met and fulfilled IN Christ. Christ is the true inheritor of the land...indeed ALL the land, not just Israel. And finally, the Jewish people were supposed to be a light to the nations...they were supposed to show all the pagans the way of the one and only true God...the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We know how that went. But Christ stepped forth as this example. But obeying his Father, even unto death on a cross, he was both glorified, which we see in his receipt of all lands and powers and authorities, and he became what Israel could not.
And so, you see, Jesus Christ, in his roles of Prophet, Priest and King, has stepped forward as the true Israel...everything that God called Abraham apart from the Gentiles for. And if a time is coming when the Jews can turn back time and replace Christ with four walls, a shadow promise for a small parcel of land when he's won it all, and their own feeble attempts to shine God's love...then what on earth did Christ come for?
We know that any Jewish person to be saved, he must accept Christ. That is leaving the old covenant behind. There is NOTHING in scripture that suggests a time period where they will need to revert back to it in everything but name, but with Christ still tacked on. Because the WHOLE POINT of Christ's coming was to move past ALL those things.