I think Jesus does tell us about rapture in Luke:

36 Keep awake then and watch at all times [be discreet, attentive, and ready], praying that you may have the full strength and ability and be accounted worthy to escape all these things [taken together] that will take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man.
Luke 21:36 (Amp)

I would say Jesus could've meant to have the strength to escape the desolation of Jerusalem, but what He says to escape from is coming upon on the entire earth. Perhaps by strength, He means the strength to endure our sinful carnal urges (as in Rev. 3:10).

"[Be careful because that day will come upon you like a trap, for it will come upon the entire earth.]" We will/would be trapped with nowhere to escape to..except into His presence.

But this isn't 100% proof there is pre-trib rapture. I think it could however support the idea.

What Scripture is USED to support a Pre-Tribulation Rapture? This question presents a dilemma of duality in definition, because the word USED could be taken as one of two different meanings. The dictionary lists its definition as: To employ or apply to a given purpose, and also, To exploit, as a person; treat as a means of some selfish end. (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1966, College Edition)

In the first definition, there are books abounding that present Scriptures which the author thinks present a Pre-Trib Rapture. Scriptures are plucked out of both the New and Old Testament, and placed down like tiles in a mosaic of prophecy. {Chafer, Larkin, Scofield, Darby, Ironside, Jeremiah, Hagee, LaHaye, Hunt, Lindsey, et al.} All these authors use passages of scripture which they present in earnest to convince congregations of its verity.

Being Used But are all these scriptures BEING USED according to the second alternative definition of the word "used"? This brings up a legitimate question: How faithful are the uses of these verses to the Rules of Hermeneutics...Reasonable Logic...Valid Deductive Thinking? Are these verses being "used" to promote a preconceived schematic? Are they being mistreated in an exploitation of the teaching of the Bible?

Redesigned Hermeneutics Question #7044 listed some of the Hermeneutical principals pre-tribbers assume before they engage in their interpretation of verses. (q.v.) But can it be seen that these prescribed rules merely aid and abet the verse at hand being "used" in an inappropriate way? To the average researcher, it becomes apparent that not all is up to snuff! The Rules require a theological position that is contrary to the teaching of the Master Teacher, Jesus.(Especially, the re-erecting of the Wall of Separation between Jew and Gentile; Ephesians 2:14-18.)

For an in depth examination of this practice of using scriptures, see Answer of Ray Grant in Question #96197. Verses "used" to promote the Rapture which are dealt with invalidly are: Revelation 4:1...Daniel 9:27...1 Thessalonians 4:16-17...Titus 2:13...Acts 15:13-18.

It becomes apparent that looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine is an exercise in futility. The ignoring of normal rules of hermeneutics do not make a "convincing" case. The ripping of verses out of context muddies the water, and do not bring clarification. The "splitting" of verses into separate events, and teaching that there are seven years between them is horrendous exposition (See treatment of Titus 2:13, Scofield Reference Study Bible, 1945, ftnt.). Putting reliance on King James Version grammar is a misleading practice that is engaged in, too.

Matthew Twenty-four The passage of scripture, the Olivet Discourse, which inspired the Question of this posting is an exciting teaching of Jesus about the Fall of Jerusalem, and the entire nation of Israel. But to get a true understanding, one cannot skip around and choose a few scriptures and expect to understand it. All of Jesus's words must be considered. Especially when He revealed that:

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things will have happened. (Matthew 24:34)

Jesus's application of his phrase, I tell you the truth and the word, certainly, are quite emphatic. But what throws off modern readers is the grand, explosive, language in verses 29-31. This is not reference to the Second Coming, but is typical Old Testament vernacular that describes the fall of a nation. IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT refer to a Rapture or future Tribulation, as Pre-Tribbers allege. Jesus's interpretation takes precedence over modern prophecy authors' prophetic timelines.

By the way to show that Jesus is not talking about the End of the World, Pre-Tribbers need to realize that the Greek word the disciples used for the End was synteleia, which was the same word Jesus used in Matthew 13 to describe the End- Time Harvest. The disciples thought that something as terrible as the destruction of the Temple could only signal the End of the World. But when Jesus spoke of the "end" he did not use that word, but used telos, simply the end of an age. In this case the End of the Mosaic Age...the end of sacrificial observance...the end of the Law.

If Pre-Trib Dispensationalists continue to interpret Matthew 24 as teaching about the End of the World (in this first section of the Olivet Discourse), they are "USING" the scriptures in the negative definition of the word.

What scripture is "Used" to support a Pre-Tribulation Rapture? Combining an Answer with both definitions of "use" it can be said that all the scriptures applied in modern prophetic books are "being used."

{For a diligent research into the Rapture question see authors: R.C. Sproul, Yerby, Cox, North, Bass, Meldoon. And for an in depth analysis of the scripture of this posting the Olivet Discourse, see: Raymond Grant, TIMES, THEY ARE A'CHANGING, and Marcellus Kik, MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR.}

Summary of Pre-Tribulation It was requested that someone give a "summary of the arguments" for Pre-Trib. viewpoint. The best way to do this would be to present their typical chart showing where they place certain verse:

RAPTURE (31/2 yr covenant) ANTICHRIST (31/2 yr TRIBULATION) APPEARING

1Thess4:16.....Daniel9:27.....2Thess2:3.......Matt24:21.........Titus 2:13

For the RAPTURE of the Church out of the Earth, 1 Cor. 15:52, John 14:1-3, and 1 Thess. 4:16-17, are appealed to. The only place where a 7 year period is mentioned in the Bible is Daniel 9. They apply the final seven years of the 70X7 prophecy to a time in the future where the Jews make a covenant with Antichrist, who breaks the covenant after 31/2 years, and begins the "Great Tribulation."

This ANTICHRIST is found in Daniel 9:27, 2 Thess. 2:8-10, and various passages in Revelation. {Most orthodox theologians apply the "Anointed One (Prince) of Daniel 9 to Jesus, not an Anti-Jesus!} The GREAT TRIBULATION, they take from Matthew 24:21. And then that Tribulation is ended after 31/2 year by the APPEARING of Christ, according to Titus 2:13, and Matt. 24:30.

But as already shown, these verses are taken out of context, or dealt with by eisegesis, with a preconceived schematic chart as an overlay.

In The Rapture Exposed, Barbara R. Rossing offers a good answer for why Jesus doesn't mention the Rapture in His Matthew 24 discourse. She says (page 32) the belief that Christ will return to earth again is foundational for Christians – but this is not the same as the Rapture, which is only a recent theological development. On page 22, she explains that the Rapture has its origins in the nineteenth century beginning, according to one critic, with a young girl's vision. In 1830, in Port Glasgow, Scotland, fifteen-year-old Margaret MacDonald attended a healing service, where she was said to have seen a vision of a two-stage return of Jesus Christ. The story of her vision was adopted and amplified by John Nelson Darby, a British evangelical preacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren. So, the Rapture is a quite recent concept and by no means as widely believed as some 'Dispensationalists' would suggest.

On page 24, Rossing says proponents admit that the dispensationalist system is not spelled out in any single passage in the Bible but they insist that a comprehensive system is necessary and that Darby's dispensationalism, with its divisions of history and its two-stage future return of Christ, is "the only system" that can make sense of otherwise contradictory biblical passages.

On page 57, Rossing says Dispensationalists find in just three verses, Daniel 9:25-27, God's framework for the world's entire prophetic future, including an implicit two-stage Rapture:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

According to post-tribulation proponents, Titus 2:13 describes two distinct events, separated by a seven-year "gap" or interval. The 'blessed hope" refers to the Rapture, while the "glorious appearing" will happen seven years later, after the tribulation:

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

On the other hand, pre-tribulation proponents, such as LaHaye and Lindsey, find solace in Revelation 3:10:

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation [or trial], which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Tim LaHaye says this statement promises believers that they will be kept from the hour or time of the tribulation, which is called "that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth."

Matthew chapter 24 has limited predictive value for Dispensationalists because of verse 34:

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus said that no man knows the day and hour of these events, but if they have been correctly attributed, they were to occur during the lifetimes of those to whom Jesus spoke. Rossing says (page 183) two thousand years have now passed since Jesus spoke these words, and the people he addressed as "this generation" have long since passed away – yet the specific events of which he spoke did not literally happen as exactly as Dispensationalists say they must.

The Rapture Ready website provides a detailed argument why a pre-tribulation Rapture is to be preferred over a post-tribulation Rapture. Some of the biblical exegesis is obscure, but includes Luke 12:36 and Revelation 19:7-8 in combination:

Luke 12:36: And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

Revelation 19:7-8: Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Both passages refer to a wedding, and Rapture Ready sets out to prove that this is a reference to a pre-tribulation Rapture.

It's a combination of a couple of things.

First, there's a passage in Matthew 24:38-41:

For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Dispensationalists take this to mean that the Christian will be taken, and the non-Christian will be left. This passage from Matthew is taken to refer to the same incident that will happen according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

According to this viewpoint, this is the same incident referred to in the "rescuing" in Jeremiah 30:7:

Alas, what a terrible time of trouble it is! There has never been any like it. It is a time of trouble for the descendants of Jacob, but some of them will be rescued out of it.

That is, they'll be saved from the tribulation. Revelation 3:10 echoes this:

Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Thessalonians 1:10 is also taken to refer to this time:

and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

So these verses are all taken to mean the same time period, namely, the saving of the elect from having to go through the tribulation. All of these verses feed into the idea that we will be saved from the tribulation before it happens.

Incidentally, this interpretation was first systematized by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's. The reason it's such a popular viewpoint in America today, is because of Darby's work on the Scofield Study Bible, which was the first study Bible to be published in the United States. Since it's Darby's interpretation of Revelation that is present within the study Bible, many people viewed this interpretation as the "de-facto" interpretation of Revelation and eschatology in general.

Personally, I tend not to agree with these points (I'm an amillenialist), but having had grown up with this viewpoint, I figured I'm somewhat qualified to answer.