My Response to
Ed Stevens Book:
"Expectations Demand a Rapture"
By Nathan DuBois
Introduction
I promised Ed Stevens my
critique on his book and I will do my utmost to be thorough and precise in
everything he has written and everything I espouse. I will respond in the order
that Ed has presented the arguments in this book, from preface to conclusion.
I, from the beginning, admit this is an area where I have a strong stance against
a physical rapture. As I have stated to many of my friends in correspondence
and debate, a proper understanding of exactly what the first century Christians
did expect is important in our understanding of the whole gospel and it's place in our lives toady. This is an important issue,
not to salvation, but to the knowledge of our Lord God and His plan for mankind
in this world, which human kind will inhabit forever.
The Basis
The first thing that stands
out about Ed's book is his title. He readily and honestly admits that a title
"Silence Demands a Rapture" makes it seem as
if he is making an argument from silence. He readily acknowledges this would be
a mistake and has changed the title to "Expectations Demand a First
Century Rapture." This only points out the
necessity I see in having this debate. As I said above, understanding the first
century Christians expectations are key to understanding the completed and
fulfilled gospel. This is a serious issue.
Ed says that the change in
title came after reflecting on some input from others who said that the
previous title gave it's perceived weakness of trying
to make an "argument from silence." This is no doubt true. The
position I take on this point is that by changing the title, he still did not
change the fact that his book is admitting to come from an
insecurity in dealing with the silence of post AD 70 Christendom. The
need to settle his own questions and the questions of the Preterist critics
concerning this infamous silence is still the basis of the book and appears (my
assumption) to be the basis for his abandoning and "spiritual
rapture" position.
Ed claims that the Bible
contains Biblical "expectation statements" that need to be answered.
The fact that the church is curiously silent about the fulfillment of these
things is a puzzling element in Ed's view. He says:
The "expectation
statements" do for the rapture view what the "time statements"
do for the Preterist view. They pose a dilemma for the credibility of the New
Testament writers if they are not fulfilled exactly according to the terms defined
in the text."
This stance on the
"expectation statements" that Ed is taking I believe is not the right
way to view it. What he has just done is come full circle to the argument of
the dispensational believer who cannot let go of the "literal fulfillment
of prophecy" which they hold according to their own understanding! Christ
was notorious for not meeting the expectations of an audience who were out for
their own benefit. The fulfillment of expectations cannot be based on the
literal writings of a man, who is addressing an audience of an event, which he
describes as a "mystery." What was a mystery to them is not clear to
us by just translating their expectations literally according to our
understanding throughout church history.
I cannot agree with the
above statement for another reason. "Expectation statements" are by
no means a kin to "time statements" nor do they hold the same weight.
God has proved Himself faithful to the exact on His
time statements. From the time given for the slavery of the children of
Abraham, to the time in captivity at
Understanding what the
"expectation statements" mean, like prophesy, must be proved by the
"time statements" and history. The result of the event and
it's impact for you and I, as well as when the expectations were to be
fulfilled, is the key to us 21st century Christians understanding the
expectations of the Apostles and the first century Christians. It is not the
other way around. Expectations can be as hard to understand as prophecy, as
this situation proves. We are both Preterists, the time statements are
unmistakable due to God's track record, which is why Ed and I do not dispute
this, however, the expectations of Paul and the first century Christians are
not this concrete according to our understanding. This explains the difference
in the debates between Preterists over the conclusions that the timing leads
to. The conclusions are not easily understood.
Further along Ed's preface
he mentions again the need to try to understand these "expectation
statements" due to the silence that followed.
"The sheer volume of
these 'expectation statements' which promise that they would 'know' when the Parousia occurred, and 'see' it, and experience it,
absolutely stunned me. Then I was reminded again of the fact that not a single
post-AD 70 writer, not even Apostle John (who was supposedly still around) or
the "apostolic fathers" who supposedly wrote immediately after AD 70,
mention the Parousia as fulfilled at AD 70.
I must be honest and say
that I do not see where this causes an issue. I will address these issues as Ed
does along this critique, however I will give you the basics of my thoughts in
response to this quote.
The fact that the there is
no writings to follow up the "sheer volume of 'expectation
statements'" is irrelevant. There are, in fact, writings to follow up the
"time statements" of the second coming the church writers of the
second century and beyond, which have agreed that the timing of Matthew 24 and
Luke 21 were fulfilled in Ad 70. The fact that they would assume some
of Revelation would be fulfilled, but not all, states that they
acknowledged the judgment of God on
Why were they not asking
the same questions as Ed? Why did they take the timing, which so clearly would
have proved a total first century fulfillment, and change the truth to fit
their false expectations? Wouldn't silence prove the very rapture they agree
with? Wouldn't a disappearance of thousands, and possibly millions, prove the
rapture? The issue here is not that the lack of post-AD 70 writing proves a
literal physical rapture but, in fact, the silence proves the opposite. If
there was ever a time to show the truth of God, it would have been out of the
mouth of some non-Christian historian, noting the fact that a million
inhabitants, who were known as rabble rousers and Jew antagonists, suddenly
disappeared after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.
The Christians were
persecuted and known by their neighbors and the
The second issue I have
with the above quote is the fact that it uses weakly the fact that no
"apostolic father" wrote concerning the rapture, but the validity of
their word is disputed anyway when Ed says, "who was supposedly still
around," when referring to the "sighting" of the Apostle John in
AD 95-96. If Ed can denounce the validity of the of the "apostolic
father's" because it causes difficulty to his claim, and my belief, that
Revelation was written before AD 70, then no amount of writing by these men
would convince him of a spiritual rapture or literal one. I agree that the
testimony of an Apostle John sighting is weak, but we should not appear to
reject this "evidence," and then appeal to the same men for more
"evidence" when discussing the rapture issue.
The notion that John did
not write anything is not disputed. All Preterists must agree that no Apostle
wrote of the Parousia post-AD 70. There is no problem
here based exactly on the reason Ed says he is troubled. He acknowledges that
"they would 'know' when the Parousia occurred,
and 'see' it, and experience it." I would ask Ed, then, what is the point
to write about it? The majority, nay, all of the text we have in scripture is a
reaffirmation of beliefs in the face of adversity. From the gospels to the
Revelation, the New Testament was written to encourage, correct, reprove, and
instruct. The purpose was to carry the first fruits of salvation from faith, to
realization. If this purpose was complete then there would be no need for more
epistles. We simply do not have friendship letters of any kind from that period
that are absent from the message of the common faith in future salvation, so to
expect those type of letters, post-AD 70 is no proof at all. If they no longer
had faith, but "knew," if they no longer had hope, but perfect
confidence in their savior, in the fact that those who were asleep in Christ
were now dwelling with God, if they could "see" their salvation as
being accomplished, they would have no greater response, then to just live as
gloriously as we can live in this same truth today. I will go into much greater
detail on this further into the discussion.
Ed must also acknowledge
the lack of what we call "apostolic authority" post-AD 70. If this
were the case, the writings of John would have been mere fallible letters. If
he had written, this would be a complication and actually lend credence to the
possibility that "apostolic authority" went beyond AD 70. The lack of
this authority does not prove a disappearance, however
it acknowledges the judgment of the Apostle John who, to the best of our
knowledge, remained silent and content on the
This brings me to the
conclusion of my critique of Ed's preface. His address as to the grammar
usage is not a conflict in this portion of his book. I will thoroughly address
his grammatical problems when I reach that section of his book. I want to
instead finish by responding to what he calls the "three factors."
"These three factors
(the grammar, the expectation passages, and the lack of post-AD 70 fulfillment
claims) made me realize there is a serious grammatical, contextual and
historical problem that we twenty-first century Preterists have not adequately
addressed."
Ed is right that there are
evident historical and grammatical problems when addressing this issue. Where
we disagree is when we discuss who it is that has the problem, the Preterist,
or the "apostolic fathers." Ed shows his distrust in the church
historians who claim that the Apostle John was alive on
The issue shows the lack of
understanding of the final result of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will chose
to pick sides on this issue, the issue of the final result of the Parousia, based on the results for mankind. What occurred to
the first century Christians, would be something that
would be carried on forever in the "age to come." The benefits of the
Parousia and the rapture would be experienced by all
Christians in the future. If the rapture is literal, what benefit do we reap in
this life? If a physical rapture or resurrection was the hope of salvation,
what benefit does that give me who will continue on this earth until death? I
know Ed would not dispute the advantages we Christians have today apart from
the law, in perfect communion with God the Father, but can he adequately define
what purpose there is to life in the here and now, if it is the hereafter that
was the hope and focus of Paul and the first century Christians? Can he
adequately describe what our benefit is, truly, if the expectation of the first
century were in a disappearance? If the rewards that we are to be experiencing
are so great, why did they need to be swept away from it?
The end result and
expectation of Paul and the first century Christians was life with God,
"whether awake or asleep." The Bible, in Revelation 21 and yes, even
First Thessalonians 4, will be shown to declare that the hope of salvation was
life with God. The grammar Paul used in this powerful passage itself, so
misunderstood and wrongly interpreted proves that "God with man" is
the end result of the "hope of salvation." The reason this is not
understood is due to the misunderstanding of the curse, cross and coming. The
curse was not physical death, the cross did not by itself bring life, and the
coming was not to help the first fruits of salvation escape a world that God
would be leaving to two-thousand years worth of believers as their "age to
come." God was not helping the first fruits escape their inheritance.
Response to Section
1: The Expectations and the Silence
1. What Is Suggested
In the first section of the
book, Ed again brings the impact of his argument back to a lack of writing
concerning this event. I do agree that this book will contain plenty of
positions brought to bear by the "expectation passages" more so than
the fact there is a simple lack of evidence. I concede to Ed that he simply is
giving his point of view on these passages from a scriptural interpretation
standpoint that fits within Preterism. What has caused Ed alarm and concern
over the whole issue, what has brought him to question his former position,
however, is still the issue of silence. It is the silence, which appears to
support a rapture claim, which causes Ed to abandon a "spiritual
rapture" view. Whether or not the meat of his argument is in pointing out
the lack of evidence, one cannot dispute that his method of interpreting the
first century scriptures is grounded in the idea that this silence is so
puzzling and supports the seemingly obvious "literal rapture" theory
that the modern dispensational church holds to. His bias is that because of the
puzzling silence, it is only obvious that the "expectation passages"
are affirming to the believers a "literal rapture," just as the
church has been teaching for almost 1900 years.
Ed again explains his
questioning in the following quote.
"I noticed again the
doctrinal confusion, disorganization of leadership, and the extreme scarcity of
written material by any of the pre-AD 70 leadership immediately after AD 70, at
a time when there should have been clarity and confidence of the fulfillments
that had just occurred."
"How could it be that
some of the apostles and their traveling companions lived through the events of
AD 70 without recognizing the significance of it and saying something about it
afterwards? This is the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological
study that I am aware of. All of church history and its interpretation of Bible
prophecy is deeply affected by this silence."
Ed has again beautifully
showed his ability to side with the dispensational in their argument against
any rapture at all! They first believe that scripture was written after AD 70.
If some believe that it was all written before, it is clear to them that most
of the Apostles were probably dead, as church history records, and that the
Apostle John was simply imprisoned until he died. Why does Ed have such a hard
time with these explanations? Church history records that Peter, James and Paul
were killed during the reign of Nero. The only other popular Biblical authors
are John and Luke. I admit ignorance in what may have
happened to Luke, however Johns imprisonment easily explains his lack of
writings considering the fact that there was no more need to warn, sustain, and
instruct, nor was there the authority to do so.
Ed's statement also answers
itself when he says, "at a time when there should have been clarity and
confidence of the fulfillments that had just occurred." How does Ed know
that there was no clarity or confidence after AD 70? He admits there are no
writings saying so one way or the other! If the Christian world were to receive
the rest of God from their labors, if they were going to inherit the fruits of
their toil, would not they be in perfect confidence when they received it?
Would they not have had perfect clarity after the whole world had witnessed the
march on and destruction of
Silence in this situation
would actually point to the opposite. The purposes and reasons for writing
scripture had vanished when the Romans marched to and on
The next question Ed asks
is why the Christians never wrote about "the single most significant
factor shaping the history of eschatological study." He correctly states
that, "all of church history and its interpretation of Bible prophecy is deeply affected by this silence." What is
interesting is that these questions never change the fact that history and the
world has been left in silence after "the single most significant factor
shaping the history of eschatological study" has just taken place! This is
a more critical question that needs to be answered which Ed's view does not
adequately address. We are living in what was called the "age to
come." Obviously it was God's will to leave us with pure silence after the
events of AD 70. Neither literal rapture or complete rest,
clarity, and confidence will change the fact of silence. So what is this
"age to come" that the world inherited and why was a
rapture significant to it? Why did God not just simply end the world in
AD 70 if the "hope of salvation" was found in a literal rapture? If
that was the hope, then what hope have we? Ed's view creates the same
"what hope is there now" scenario for the Preterist that every
dispensational asks in any debate. Rather than understanding a "hope of
salvation" that the first century Christians had that relates to their
inheritance of an "age to come," he has diminished their true hope
and minimized the real "hope of salvation" by siding with the irresponsible
hermeneutics of a group of Christians who will not be satisfied until God
creates their version of Armageddon which their many science fiction books
proclaim as doctrine! The fact is all of church history and the "age to
come" has been left in silence. This silence was God's will and we would
be better served understanding the points of view of what the Christians
actually received "on that day" and what we were left with
"beyond the end times" instead of trying to focus on a silence that
does nothing more than leave speculative questions for conspirator people. The
silence is answered in the true "hope of salvation" that we can and
should, as Preterists, realize. This "hope of salvation" that the
first century Christians had brought pure freedom, perfect clarity, relief from
persecution, perfect confidence, and a perfected conscience.
2. Why They Failed to
Document It
The problem I have with
this section is it forces me to repeat my opinions on the matter of silence
that I have already addressed. I do not want to beat a dead horse with why
there was silence and lack of documentation because that will be dealt with in
the exegetical portion as well. However, the question of this section
specifically concerns the silence as a reason for concern. The problem of
silence seems to stump many Christians, including Preterists and so the logical
reasons for silence without it demanding a literal rapture must be stated and
emphasized.
"This
question [How could they fail to document it?] assumes
the pre-AD 70 Church understood that the eschatological events were definitely
supposed to take place in their lifetime, and they would be of such a nature
that they could be seen and experienced by the true Christians who were
'spiritually discerning' enough to know what happened."
Ed is absolutely correct in
his assumption that "they would be of such a nature that they could be
seen and experienced by the true Christians..." This is all he need say
though concerning who would know. The true Christian would be "spiritually
discerning enough to know" so to add that as a qualifier for those who
would understand it is unnecessary. This was the point of the epistles and the
preaching of the apostles. They were to prepare the church for what was to
happen. The church needed to have it's hearts and
minds prepared and therefore the apostles taught them both in person and
through epistles. Every "true" Christian would be "spiritually
discerning enough."
Would Christ return if
those who were to be the elect, the "first fruits of salvation" were
not prepared to meet their husband? Would Christ return if the number He had
set apart for salvation were not completed and made ready?
"2 Corinthians 11:2 - I feel a divine
jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure
bride to her one husband."
The idea here clearly is
that Paul's mission was to present the Bride as acceptable, ready, and pure.
Paul did not only take this mission upon himself, but he also put this task
upon Timothy who also was to keep the commandment "without spot or blame
until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The commandment Timothy
received was to keep the church and instruct them. He was to preach the truth
and to avoid false doctrines. If these commands could not be kept, why did Paul
give them to Timothy? In Ephesians Paul also speaks of the mission in similar
terms.
"Eph 4:11 It was He who gave
some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some
to be pastors and teachers 12 to prepare God's people for works of service,
so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the
faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining
to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
The question here is how would they attain the "whole measure of the fullness of
Christ." This is what I believe occurred at the Parousia.
They reached unity in the faith, they had full knowledge of the Son of God and
they attained the whole measure. If they had not attained, there would still be
apostles. They were appointed "until" according to Ephesians. If
apostles no longer exist, who were led into all truth, who were appointed
according to this mission Paul explains, then the mission has been accomplished
at the time apostles were no longer needed. This occurred at Ad 70. The church
was led into all knowledge. This is also what Paul says would happen when
Christ returns. When the "perfect comes" there would be a change, an
experience, a knowledge, an understanding that took place.
"1
Corinthians
This statement by Paul is
either true or it isn't. Paul, and every Christian who would have lived through
this event, must have known as they were "fully known." This is not
hope or faith; this means they had knowledge and utter confidence. It is not
easily understood what this statement means. This is clearly one of Paul's
expectation statements however he does not make it clear what the result of
being "face to face" means. The clue to this is that he would
"know." Paul's reliance of the fact that he would "know" is
a clue to what he really expects. Some people see this as a proof text that
Paul would be "face to face" with God Himself. This cannot make sense
in light of the fact Paul mentions that at that present time, he sees
"indistinctly, as in a mirror." Paul is not saying he will see the
literal face of God at the Parousia in the future any
more than he is saying he is looking into a literal mirror in the present. The
point here is knowledge, and at that point, there would be no reflections of who God is, no mystery to what he sees and knows, he would
see and know as if face to face with God Himself. He would know God as God
knows him. This is the expectation Paul had, to understand it all completely,
and not "in part."
"Our critics bring
this problem into sharp focus when they ask: 'How could pre-AD 70 saints who
had consistently been taught that fulfillments would happen in their lifetime
and would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem, suddenly after AD 70 forget
all about it and go their merry way as if nothing significant happened? Why
don't we either hear bitter complaints about the non-occurrence, or enthusiastic
claims of fulfillment? Ho-hum complacency after such significant events is
incomprehensible.'"
I really find it funny that
this question is raised at all, even by a dispensational, considering the fact
they believe that scripture had been written beyond AD 70 and yet the Bible
itself does not record any of this most significant event in Jewish or Church
history. The Bible does not even record the Neronian persecutions, which all
but wiped out the remaining apostles. It is a silly question by men who assume
authorship of New Testament text post AD 70, one that could go in circles, and
has, for years.
"How could pre-AD 70
Christians who were so intensely longing for His return, suffering in the
tribulation and crying 'How long, O Lord' and 'Marana-tha' (Oh Lord, come!) see their vindication and relief come in AD 70, and then
walk away in silence? That is not a very good way to 'give an answer' to the
Jewish mockers who were already challenging them to produce the fulfillment. If
they didn't recognize the fulfillments, then an embarrassed
silence would have been their expected response."
This last statement is
impossible in the light of the scripture I produced. One thing that cannot be
disputed is that whether there was a literal rapture or a spiritual one,
confusion, misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge would not result for those
who awaited the Parousia. Lack of knowledge is not a
reason for silence no matter who is correct in this debate. The question for
silence is again answered in the knowledge itself. They did "see their
vindication and relief come" and therefore had a perfect understanding.
There was no more need for the apostles to write about it, to instruct about
it, to declare it, because Paul himself declared it was going to be perfectly understood.
Silence did not answer nor
leave unanswered Jewish objections to the validity of Christianity. I am amazed
a Preterist would raise this objection in light of the known vindication they
and Christ Himself received in the act of AD 70 itself. Who was left to
question the Christian? Was the priesthood that was destroyed in the temple
left to raise objections against Christianity and persecute the Christians?
Were the Jews, who now suffered the wrath of
The silence of post-AD 70
Christendom was a natural result of pure freedom, perfect clarity, relief from
persecution, perfect confidence, and a perfected conscience. The silence of
post-AD 70 Christendom is a natural result of the mission of the Church leaders
being accomplished when the Church reached their fullness in Christ. The
silence of post-AD 70 Christendom is a natural result of the apostolic
authority that was once held by the Apostle John no longer being applicable or
needed. We have no record at all of normal letters from any of the apostles to
the churches. All epistles were written in an effort to accomplish the mission
as declared in Ephesians, as given to Timothy and as handed down to the
disciples from our Lord. It is not disputed that this mission was accomplished.
If we did not have non-instructive, uninspired regular celebratory letters
pre-AD 70 between Christians or the apostles, why is it so surprising that none
exist afterwards?
"Of course this
presupposes that the Parousia, resurrection and
judgment were of such a visible and historical nature that they could not be
missed by the true Christians."
This is a perfectly true
statement. The falsehood found within this statement is the assumption that
silence means it was missed by the "true Christians." I have
showed why silence does not determine the result one way or the other. Silence
can confirm my belief in a spiritual rapture as easy as it forces Ed to
question one. In this debate it is clear that silence is being used to
determine the means of fulfillment of the "expectation passages" by
Ed. He has laid his case to interpret the "expectation passages" in a
literal way due to the silence. Silence is still ultimately the reason Ed has
for questioning his past held beliefs of a spiritual rapture. Silence is
ultimately what demands Ed to look at the "expectation passages in a
literal way. Silence, in Ed's view, does demand the literal rapture.
3. What They Expected to
"See"
It should be already
obvious to the reader in this debate that what Ed will produce is the literal
fulfillment idea for the "expectation statements" of what the
apostles and first century Christians expected to see, and I will produce an
idea of spiritual fulfillment. His questioning of the silence brings about Ed's
literal approach. He admits to holding a spiritual view of these events until
he could not answer the silence question. I have shown that silence is, by no
means, a problem in my interpretation and so I will base my interpretations on
what it is they, and we who are living in that "age to come" have
received. I will interpret these passages based on the purpose and result of
the gospel itself as understood through a Preterist interpretation. I will not
take the literal reading of these passages any more than I will take the
literal reading of prophecy to determine the fulfillment. Like in proving the
truth of Preterism itself, I will take historical events and results based on
timing and gospel implications to show what it was that the first century
Christians really expected. I will not take the fulfillment of an even Paul
describes as a "mystery" (1 Corinthians
"Did these Christians
really have expectations of a real, historical, visible relief and reward that
they knew they would absolutely see and experience without fail at the Parousia."
The answer is an emphatic
"YES!" The answer is also that they received such a visible relief
and reward in a physical and spiritual fulfillment. They physically received
relief from the persecution of Judaism and spiritually received the reward of
eternal life. They were physically able to rest from the fear of persecution
from the Jew who continually stoned them and brought them before tribunals.
They physically received relief from the Roman who had focused his attention on
the Jew and quelling their rebellion and turned their anger away from the
Christian, allowing Christianity to grow to incalculable numbers after AD 70.
They spiritually received rest from their conscience, which was unable to be
perfected before AD 70 (Heb 9:9-10, 10:1-14). They spiritually received rest
from the temptation to return to Judaism. This was the biggest struggle for a
Christian. A very pervasive theme of most of the epistles was to help them
remain confident and strong in the face of Judaizers who were trying to convert
the Gentile to Judaism and bring the Jew into apostasy. They received rest from
this spiritual battle.
These are just a few of the
things that the Parousia brought, which a literal
rapture minimizes. We are not in their place, so to ask questions which appear
to say that without literal disappearance and that without literal and visual
"face to face" with the Messiah Himself, they could not have rest, is
to minimize the results of the Parousia itself, to minimize the results of the
gospel, and to minimize the struggle they dealt with. It also strips us of the
important understanding of the gospel and what it does for us today. If a
literal rapture was the "hope of salvation," then we are in a world
without hope.
I will cover the
expectation points Ed brings up and deal with some of them more thoroughly than
others. Some we already agree upon and do not require debate.
A. Expectation 1
"Some of them would
definitely live to see and experience the big three events...They didn't all
die in the persecution."
This expectation is agreed
upon and the Bible itself shows a small debate with Peter, John, and Christ
discussing the issue of John possibly living through it and Peter dying before
it. Since the truth of the Preterism is not at debate here, but the conclusions
of Preterism are, I will not address the first expectation because it is
agreed.
B. Expectation 2
"They were 'eagerly
waiting' and longing for His return...Was that longing fulfilled? Could they
keep silent about it after pumped up so before hand?"
(1) Text 1
The proof text for this
expectation and the reasons for the questions I will address in order. 1
Corinthians
(2) Text 2
"Philippians
3:20 but our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a savior, the Lord
Jesus Christ."
Our citizenship was in a
place called the "heavenly
"1
Thessalonians
5:9
"For God did not appoint us to wrath but to obtain salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are
awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one
another and build each other up as you are already doing."
The conclusion of the
context of the hope of the Christian is summed up in verse 10. The culmination
of the hope of the Christian was nothing other than a relationship with the Almighty
God of heaven and earth: to be “saved” from the present body and to be present
with the Lord. However, the result of this hope was God dwelling with man.
Whether he was “awake or asleep” man would forever be in relationship with
“Abba Father.” The old order would pass away and the new order, which was the
Edenic relationship, had been restored. The writer of Hebrews [I emphatically
believe to be Paul] expresses this coming of the New Covenant, or God with man,
when he addresses the coming of the "heavenly
"Hebrews
Paul is expressing the hope
of a perfect tabernacle that was replacing the imperfect tabernacle which was
of the worldly creation; the temple. Daniel was the first to link the
"shattering" [RSV] of the "holy people" to the judgment, rapture/resurrection
(Daniel 12). Christ again linked the destruction of the temple to the judgment
Matthew 23 and to the rapture/resurrection in Matthew 24. The Revelation 19
links the judgment of the harlot
With these undeniable links
to the visible judgment of
"Hebrews 8:6 But as it is, Christ has
obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as
the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no
occasion for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The
days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I
made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them
out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I
paid no heed to them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make
with the house of
It is easy to see how this
passage perfectly links the hope of the "perfect that was coming;
"which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he
mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises," with
the establishment of the new covenant; "when I will establish a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," with
the end of the offices in AD 70 that took away apostolic authority and the
coming of the perfect knowledge and clarity Paul expected; "And they
shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know
the Lord,' for all shall know me," and finally, with the destruction
of the law which would be the visible sign that all was consummated; "He
has declared that the first is old and what is old and aging is about to
disappear."
This vanishing of the old
and establishment of the new is by no means a new theme in Paul's writing. He
was assured that the coming covenant of righteousness was so glorious, that
what the people experienced at
"2
Corinthians
3:7 Now
if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stones, came with
glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look directly at Moses’ face
because of the glory of his face, a affliction is producing for us an
absolutely incomparable fading glory, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit
not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory,
the ministry of righteousness overflows with even more glory. 10 In fact, what
had been glorious is not glorious in this case because of the glory that
surpasses it. 11 For if what was fading away was glorious, what
endures will be more glorious…"
Second Corinthians provides
us with a beautiful link to exactly what Hebrews 8 is speaking of. The coming
"ministry of righteousness" would be so glorious that the
"ministry of death" could not even compare. To think that this is
speaking alone of its coming would be a mistake. Though the events of AD 70
were visibly terrifying, and though I do believe that the shikinah glory of God
was visibly seen over the city, it was the ministry that is being compared and
the effects of Moses' face afterwards, which are being compared. This may be
used as a proof text to say that the individual glorified bodies of believers
would have more glory that the face of Moses. This would be a grave mistake
since the thing here that has glory has nothing to do with personal
glorification, but it is the ministry, which has the glory. It was the
covenant, which would be glorious. Even more so than all the physical, visible
evidences of glory from the ministry of death, the ministry of righteousness
would not even allow Moses' personal, physical glorification to compare to it!
Read Hebrews again. It was
the physical covenant, which could not perfect the conscience of the
worshipper, which was of this creation and imperfect, which was
enacted on promises that do not compare to the promises of the new covenant,
which was vanishing (Heb 8:1-13, 9:1-14, 10:1-14). This was the hope, this was
the point, and this is what is minimized if a literal rapture is true. A
literal disappearance is not what they waited for. Individual glorification was
not the result of the glorification of the ministry of righteousness. It was
glorious because it perfected, it was glorious because righteousness is a much
more perfect promise than death. Eternal life is a much better hope than the
promise of death.
It is also a promise that
they would be made perfect. If the downfall of the old covenant was that its
external practices could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper, and the
promise of the new covenant was better because it gave what the old covenant
could not give, then perfection of the conscience of the worshipper was a key
promise of the new. Paul describes being made perfect in Hebrews 11. He says it
would not happen apart from the patriarchs of the faith. They were not made
perfect before Paul was. They would all be made perfect in AD 70. Paul links
this being "made perfect" with the coming of the new covenant and the
arriving at the promise of the "heavenly
"Hebrews
11:13 These
all died in faith, without having received the promises, but they saw them
from a distance, greeted them, and confessed that they were foreigners and
temporary residents in the earth. 14 Now those who say such things make it
clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been remembering the
land they came from, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But they
now aspire to a better land, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God, for He has prepared a city for them... 39 All these were
approved through their faith, but they did not receive what was promised,
40 since God had provided something better for us, so they would not be made
perfect without us."
What was better that they
were receiving was already shown in Hebrews 8. However the writer of Hebrews
goes into his description of the homeland that they were citizens of, the
homeland he describes Abraham as waiting for but not receiving. It is in direct
relation to the citizenship of the believer in the text that Ed provides in
Philippians 3:20. It was a city that would not be inherited until all the
first fruits were ready. It was an inheritance of a "city," a
"heavenly land," a perfection that would not be attained without the
whole batch. Hebrews 12 describes this very "city" and its glory.
"Hebrews
12:18 For
you have not come to what might be touched, to a blazing fire, to darkness,
to gloom, and storm, 19 to the blast of a trumpet, and the sound of words. (Those
who heard it begged that not another word be spoken to them, 20 for they could
not bear what was commanded: And if even an animal touches the mountain, it
must be stoned! 21 And the appearance was so
terrifying that Moses said, "I am terrified and trembling). 22 Instead,
you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God (the heavenly
Jerusalem), to myriads of angels in festive gathering, 23 to the assembly of
the first born whose names have been written in heaven, to God who is the judge
of all, to the spirits of righteous people made perfect, 24 to Jesus (mediator
of a New Covenant), and to the sprinkled blood, which says better things than
the blood of Abel…26 His voice shook the earth at that time, but now he has
promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also heaven.
27 Now this expression, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of
what can be shaken, that is, created things, so that what cannot be shaken will
remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom, which
cannot be shaken, let us hold onto grace. By it, we may serve God
acceptably, with reverence and awe; 29 For our God is
a consuming fire."
The hope of the Christian
was a New Covenant, a "house not made with hands" a "kingdom which cannot be
shaken" a "better land," a "ministry of righteousness." Paul was expecting and
teaching that they would receive the new covenant at the second coming of
Christ. The covenant of death would be taken away once for all. Only upon this
removal was the way to life opened for all (Corinthians
(3) Text 3
Hebrews
(4) Text 4
"Jude
The knowledge that Paul
spoke about in First Corinthians 13, the knowledge of eternal life and
receiving that eternal life, the ministry of righteousness, is specifically
mentioned here as the mercy they were expecting. Jude clearly notes his
expectation of mercy to be fulfilled with receiving eternal life. Eternal life
is something that would be received without dying first or being raptured. The
fear of no life after death was very troublesome to the Thessalonians and they were
encouraged to take hope in the fact that those who had fallen asleep would
indeed rise to be with God at His Parousia.
"1
Thessalonians
This verse gives us the
entire context of the "hope of salvation." These verses are the
beginning of the rapture/resurrection passage that is at the heart of this
debate. Here Paul is responding to a worry of the Thessalonians that their
brethren who have fallen asleep before the Parousia
would not rise. He was putting to rest their worry that the dead in Christ had
somehow perished for not living until the Parousia
occurred. This may be because of the passage in Daniel that blesses the man who
comes to the 1335 days, or possibly the passage, which says, "he who endures to the end shall be saved." Either way,
they had a fear of hopelessness concerning those who had dies before the Parousia. Paul was addressing this fear.
He did not want them to
grieve like those who had "no hope." They did have hope and all their
saved brethren who had died in Christ had this same hope. Because of their
"hope of salvation," they need not grieve. Their hope would not
disappoint. Paul specifically addresses their hope in a statement in verse 14.
God would come down so that those who had fallen asleep in Him would be
"with Him." Christ was going to "receive them unto himself"
when He returned.
"John
This was the answer given
to Peter when he wanted to follow Christ and declared he would follow Him, even
to death. Christ gave Peter His opportunity to make good on his pledge to the
Lord, and when Peter died, he, like those in First Thessalonians and Daniel
also, would await the return of Christ, which is described in this First
Thessalonians passage, before they would "rise" to be with God.
I must address a
misunderstanding to verse 14 of First Thessalonians before I go any farther.
The dispensational takes verse 14 and does some serious twisting to what is
being said here. The idea is that since Christ rose, the dead in Him will also
rise. Paul says that in the same way that Christ rose from the dead, so God
will bring the dead to be with Him when at the return. The church has
taught that this says, "since Christ's physical
body rose, so will the physical bodies of the dead rise. God will bring with
Him the spirits of the dead, they will reenter the physical body and then
they will rise."
Here Paul is not saying
that the dead will come down with God to reenter their physical bodies. This
cannot be so because Paul himself teaches that the dead are not with God until
the resurrection! There are no spirit bodies to come down with Him. They are
still dead until He raises them. However Paul is saying that just like Christ
rose to be with God, when God comes, the dead in Christ will also go to be with
Him. It is exactly what Christ told Peter and what Paul reaffirms in verses
15-16.
"1
Thessalonians
When they witnessed this
"visible" return in the clouds of heaven at AD 70, just as Christ had
decreed, as the whole world was witness to the judgment of God on
(5) Text 5
"1
Thessalonians
This passage also goes to
the heart of the debate. How was it that they received this deliverance? Was
this deliverance the same as what the rapture/resurrection would be? I do not
believe that the deliverance from the wrath is the same as the event known as
the rapture/resurrection. I believe this is confirmed in Daniel 12 and Matthew
24. Daniel says that "your people" would be delivered during the
tribulation such as the world had never known.
"Dan 12:1 At
that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people.
And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was
a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every
one whose name shall be found written in the book. "
This is not saying that the
Christians did not live in a time of tribulation or a time of trouble. The time
that Christ declared was "the beginning of sorrows" or the
"birth pains" was occurring all throughout the empire from the
beginning of persecution of the church by the Judaizers through the Roman
persecution under Nero. No matter what tradition says, there is no set 7 year
time period, there is only a set 3 1/2 year period of a "time of trouble,
such as never has been since there was a nation till that time." This time
of "wrath" is what the Christians would be delivered from, according
to Daniel.
When a proper reading of
Matthew and Daniel are considered, it is impossible that this deliverance in
Daniel 12:1 is the rapture. The rapture would occur only after the
resurrection, and the resurrection would not occur until the "end of the
days." These days are the 3 1/2 years of wrath (Daniel 12:6-13), the 42
months of the "time of vengeance" in which the gentiles would trample
the city (Luke
"Matthew
24:36 But
of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,
but the Father only. 37 As were
the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For
as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying
and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and
they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the
coming of the Son of man."
This is a perfect picture
of the time of wrath. If we all recall the time of Noah, he had to build an
ark, he had to obey the Lord upon entering it. He did all this after suffering
the scoffing of those who did not believe there would be a flood. They were
mocked and persecuted for building a boat in the middle of dry land, big enough
to house 2 of every type of creature and even 7 of some others, not to mention
his family. Noah had to specifically obey and follow the instructions of the
Lord, according to his faith, in order to be saved from the "wrath"
of God on that wicked generation. Christ said that the second coming would be
in the same way. In other words, the Christians would have to obey, in faith,
their Lord and they would have to follow the signs laid down and flee the
"wrath to come." They would be witnesses to the destruction of
"Matthew
24:15 So
when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing
in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who
are in Judea flee to the mountains; 17 let him who is on the housetop not
go down to take what is in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field
not turn back to take his mantle. 19 And alas for those who are with
child and for those who give suck in those days! 20 Pray that your flight
may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For
then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning
of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Christ was affirming Daniel
12 and was providing their deliverance in the same means as Noah, by their
obedience in faith to the warnings of Christ. This is why the warnings were so
important. I would not even limit the fleeing to
Christ further likens the
time of Noah when specifically referring to the taking and leaving of
individuals during that time. If it was the family of Noah that is considered
taken, it is still not the same type of "taken" as happened to
Elijah. If it was the Christian who was to be taken, like Noah, then the
Christian would be delivered like Noah, by faith in obedience to the Lord when
they fled to the hills. However, a better reading of this entire passage shows
it is the wicked who were being taken. When Christ
compares it to Noah, he said the flood "took them" when referring to
the wicked. So like in the days of Noah, it would be the wicked who were taken
by the wrath of God and the destruction that the Romans would bring upon the
Jews, specifically in Jerusalem, but also throughout the empire.
"Matthew
24:39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away,
so will be the coming of the Son of man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one
is taken and one is left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill;
one is taken and one is left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not
know on what day your Lord is coming."
If it was not as it was in
the days of Noah, and God had planned to rapture the Christians as the form of
deliverance from the "wrath to come," then there would be no need for
them to "watch" or "flee." However, Christ declares it
would be like in the days of Noah. Christ specifically addresses the sweeping
away of the wicked in Noah's day when discussing those who would be
"taken." Matthew 24 is not a proof of a literal rapture nor can it be
used to prove that a rapture would be the means by
which the Christians were delivered from wrath.
Daniel 12 seals up the
difference between the rapture/resurrection and the time of deliverance from
the "time of trouble" and "the wrath to come." It is clear
that the deliverance would occur before the "time of trouble "and
before the "wrath to come." However, Daniel 12 makes it clear that
the resurrection would not occur until those days were over. Daniel himself was
told to go his way and that he would rise "at the end of the days."
"Daniel
12:6 And I said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the
waters of the stream, 'How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?'
7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the
stream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven; and I heard him
swear by him who lives for ever that it would be for a time, two times, and
half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes
to an end all these things would be accomplished... 12 Blessed is he who
waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. 13 But
go your way till the end; and you shall rest, and shall rise to your
allotted place at the end of the days."
If the resurrection of the
dead in Christ occurs before the rapture of the living, then the rapture took
place after the deliverance of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24. This means that
there was no deliverance by disappearance that was being hoped for by the
Christians in Thessalonica or anywhere else in Christendom, because deliverance
by disappearance was not taught. The deliverance from wrath which is in First
Thessalonians 1:10 that was expected was not a
rapture. The rapture was an event that is was a mystery and was linked to the
resurrection, where the living are clothed in
incorruption.
(1) Text 6:
a. Understanding the
Creation
"Romans
8:18-25 For
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are
not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us. 19
For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be
revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility-not willingly,
but because of Him who subjected it-in the hope 21 that creation itself
will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom
of God's children. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been
groaning together with labor pains until now. 23 And not only that, but we
ourselves who have the Spirit as the first fruits-we also groan within
ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Now
in this hope we were saved, yet hope that is seen is not hope,
because who hopes for what he sees. 25 But if we hope for what we do not see,
we eagerly wait for it with patience."
There is so much happening
in this passage it will by far be the biggest section in this response. The
parallels and misunderstandings of this passage are astounding and even the
Preterist gets caught up in them. I see the parallels when reading this passage, others see the literal text and think this is a
perfect proof of individual glorification of the "body" at the
rapture/resurrection. However, like all prophecy must be understood through
other parallel text and similar fulfillments in past history, so this passage
cannot stand alone to the literal reader. Romans 8 must be interpreted by other
scripture. Once seen in the light of other parallel passages, the message of
their expectation should be clear.
First Paul claims that his
sufferings will not even be comparable to the glory, which will be revealed to
them. I have already addressed the glory of the "ministry of
righteousness" that was to be revealed would surpass the glory of the
"ministry of death." I have already described how this ministry of
righteousness and being made perfect is considered side by side with receiving
the promise of perfection and the inheritance of the "heavenly
The heavenly
Paul declares that the
"creation eagerly waits with
anticipation for God's sons to be revealed." This is a parallel to
Galatians and Ephesians where Paul discusses the true sons of Abraham and heirs
to the throne are those who are under faith. Why would creation eagerly await
the revelation of the true heirs of Abraham? Why would
creation be set free "into the glorious freedom of God's
children?" How did the literal creation receive this freedom?
"Eph
This creation is not
talking about the days of creation in Genesis; the planet, stars, animals, and
humans. This creation is that which was planted in the
"Isaiah
51:15-16
But I am the Lord your God, who divided the sea whose waves roared- The Lord of
hosts is His name. And I have put My words in
your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant
the heavens, Lay the foundation of the earth, and say to
It is entirely possible
that the creation Paul spoke about was the creation of the people of God. When He gave the Israelites His laws, He set apart for Himself a
people. His elect, His remnant, have always been people of faith, and
those of faith, from the time the Law was given, have been in bondage to the
law. Freedom from that law was the freedom that all creation groaned for and
anxiously awaited.
It is not coincidence that
Paul, in the preceding verses, mentions the fact that they were co-heirs with
Christ and would receive the glory that He received. As Jude says, that glory
was eternal life. As Paul says, that glory, that eternal life, was bestowed
upon receiving the ministry of righteousness.
"2
Corinthians
3:12 Therefore
having such a hope, [speaking of the ministry of righteousness in verses
7-11] we use great boldness- 13 not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his
face so that the sons of Israel could not look at the end of what was fading
away. 14 But their minds were closed. For to this day, at the reading of the
old covenant, the same veil remains; it is not lifted, because it is set aside
only in Christ."
This is the freedom longed
for by the creation. The elect of God had not all come in at this point. Romans 11 speaks of a time in which "all
"Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Spirit was making it clear that
the way into the holy of holies had not yet been disclosed while the first
tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is a symbol for the present time, during
which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper's
conscience. 10 They are physical regulations and only deal with food,
drink, and various washings imposed until the time of restoration. 11 Now the
Messiah has appeared, high priest of the good things
that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with
hands (that is, not of this creation)…28 so Christ, having been
offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to
deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
This is the meaning of
Hebrews 9. The veil that stood over their hearts was there because of the law
and the temple. Christ did a great job of pointing out how the law was standing
in the way of the Jew. They had taken the heart out of the laws of God and tried
to follow the letter of it to the point of excluding its true purpose. He came
to show the true meaning of the law to those whose hearts would receive it. The
only ones who would receive His teaching were those whom the Father had called
(John
"Luke
They would suffer the wrath
of God for their blindness. Christ said that the law and Moses testified of His
coming but they did not see or believe. Paul says in Romans 11:25-32 that a
"partial hardening" [because some of elect
A proper view of the Romans
passages concerning the elect of
Paul concludes that it is
"this hope," that of being set free from the "bondage of
corruption" and receiving the "redemption of our bodies," which
they were saved in. The problem here is the context of Romans 8 is not saying
that the bondage of corruption is the creation of the planet, the bondage of
corruption is the slavery to the flesh that we have. Now the question is what
keeps us in slavery to the flesh? Is it God's intention to free us of the
flesh? Is this the result of salvation? If so, then why does
there need to be a physical resurrection? Once we are dead, the
dispensational teaches, our spirits are already with the Lord. If this is true then "hallelujah!" I am finally
freed from the flesh! However they believe in a resurrection of the flesh and a
literal rapture. Where is the benefit of having my body again, glorified of not,
if I am already freed of the "bondage of corruption" being out of the
flesh with God in Spirit? This truly puzzles me.
What I believe Paul was
alluding to in being set free and receiving the redemption is the fact that
they would be set free from the thing which caused them to be slaves to the
flesh. This bondage was in the law. This bondage was the law of "sin and
death."
"Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brothers,
you were also put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of
the Messiah, so that you may belong to another-to Him who was raised from the
dead-that we may bear the fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the
sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us and bore fruit for
death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died
to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not
in the old letter of the law...9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when
the commandment came, sin sprang to life 10 and I died. The commandment that
was meant for life resulted in death for me. 11 For
sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through
it, killed me...23 But I see a different law in the parts of my body, waging
war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the
parts of my body. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this
body of death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with
my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to
the law of sin."
There are many who will
immediately say that these verses prove conclusively that the believer, prior
to AD 70, was already made alive and freed from that "bondage of
corruption" spiritually speaking. The only thing left to be done was to
have the mortal body brought to life as Paul says in Romans 8:10. Then what, I
ask, is the meaning of these statements by Paul?
"Romans
Does Paul mean that the
physical body is currently dead as he was writing this? What can Paul mean that
the body was currently "dead?" The flesh was incapable of producing
fruits of righteousness to life. No matter what Paul did he was always, and his
flesh was always, under the penalty and imprisonment of death so long as he was
trapped in the "body of death." He had been set free from sin in his
"mind," but in his flesh he was a slave to the "law of
sin." How long would he remain a slave to the "law of sin?" What
would set him free from this "body of death to bring about the
resurrection he had hoped for?
"Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of Him
who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ
from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit
who lives in you."
There is obviously
something different going on here than what has traditionally been taught. Was
Adam physically changed at the moment of sin? If he had a living mortal body,
but died at the point of sin, what changed physically? How could Paul consider
himself "dead," at that current time, when referring to his mortal
body? He then cries out for the freedom from the "body of death," and
says that it will occur through the Spirit that was already in him. His mortal
body, which was currently dead, would be brought to life through the Spirit.
What would be the result of it? What would this accomplish? What did the
resurrection accomplish?
(1) Freedom from the penalty
of sin.
Salvation through faith in
Christ, which was consummated at the resurrection, brought a freedom from the
penalty of sin, which was death.
Christ said that all who
had faith in him would never die. Clearly everyone who has believed in Christ
over the past 1,974 years since the cross have still
physically died. However this death is not the second death. Anyone who
believed in Christ would pass from life to life. For this to occur, the sting
in physical death had to be taken away. The Bible says the "sting of death
is sin, and the power of sin is the law." Sin separated us from God. Sin is
what caused Adam to be separated from God and kicked out of the garden. When
one physically dies, it has its sting if that person is in danger of being
separated from God in the afterlife. A separated person is not even considered
alive in the afterlife, but considered "eternally damned." They will
suffer the second death. However, the resurrection took away the penalty of sin
when Christ, through His Spirit, brought life to the mortal bodies.
(2) Freedom from the power
of sin.
The rapture/resurrection
would bring an end to the power of sin and take the sting out of death.
Paul says that with his
mind he was a slave to Christ, but with his flesh he was a slave to sin. In
order to release him from this power and give his mortal body life, Christ
needed to remove that thing which gave sin its power. The law had to be
removed!
"1 Corinthians
Paul says in this passage
that only after or immediately at the rapture/resurrection, would the
saying take place that death had no more sting or
victory. If the sting equaled sin, and sin had its power from the law, then the
removal of the law would be the time that this statement would come true. Only
at the removal of the law, would sin lose its power,
and death lose its sting. Simultaneously, the mortal body, which was held a
prisoner to the law of sin, would be "changed." In the words of Paul,
the mortal body would be "clothed with immortality." This occurred at
the destruction of the temple, which was the physical removal of the law (Matt
24:3) at the end of the age, which stood as the veil (2 Corinthians 3:13-14) that
blinded the eyes from the "holy of holies" (Hebrews 9:8-9) of those
who were of the "creation" that was eagerly awaiting the freedom of
the sons of God (Rom 8:18-25).
b. Understanding the
"Body"
This process of bringing
life to their "mortal bodies" was not an easy thing to understand.
Paul says "I am telling you a mystery: 'we will not all fall
asleep, but we will all be changed.'" He is saying that though not
everyone will be dead when the resurrection occurs, everyone will be changed,
both those who are asleep and those who are awake. The reason anyone who was
alive would also be changed is that they were considered currently dead
according to Paul in Romans
Some people have taken this
bride aspect and taken the personal meaning out of resurrection that the
Romans, First and Second Corinthians passages clearly imply. There is too
clearly a personal aspect to this marriage as well as there is a personal
aspect to this struggle Paul had over his flesh following the "law of
sin." This issue holds personal implications. Eternal life would be
personally experienced on an individual level. Individual "mortal
bodies" would be made alive at the resurrection, at the same time that the
ministry of death would vanish and the glory of the ministry of righteousness
would be consummated. However, it is the nature of these "mortal
bodies" that have given theologians confusion as to the nature of the
resurrection based on the Preterist implications of timing.
We must have a renewed
understanding of the "mortal body." The dead mortal body is not the
physical body that was clearly living. The dead mortal body is not the
"flesh and bone" which could not inherit eternal life. The idea of
the "mortal body" and the physical body are not one in the same.
There is a "mortal body" which was dead when Paul was physically
alive. First Corinthians offers great insight into this "mortal body"
when Paul discusses the marriage and the act of immorality.
"1 Corinthians
Numerous statements are made
here. Paul is battling immorality in the church. It is clear that the church in
If the physical body is the
"mortal body" or "flesh" that Paul is referring to, how
come there is nothing we consume that can sin against the "body?" It
is clear that Paul says God will do away with food and the physical
"body" in this passage. Yet we know that the "mortal body"
was to be "changed," and those who are asleep will have their
"mortal body" resurrected. It is also clear that the resurrected body
does not have a stomach (vs. 13). If we rise in a physical body, why does the
stomach disappear from our new state? Don't we need to have communion with the
Lord at the "marriage supper of the Lamb?" These questions are not
sarcastic. Though they may seem silly, these questions are legitimate. How can
the "physical body" be said to be done away with yet still have the
"mortal bodies" brought to life?
The interesting part of
this is Paul says that no food can sin against the body but sexual immorality
does. He stresses the importance of sinning against the body with sexual
immorality because the body will be raised. Wouldn't cancer and heart disease causing
obesity equal STDs in the sense of "sinning against the body"
according to God? Paul contrasts the differences between the physical
"body" and the "mortal body" later in this chapter. Paul
uses marriage to show what type of body He is discussing.
"1 Corinthians
The body Paul is referring
to, that Paul says will rise, cannot mean a physical body. He says that the
food, which is physical, is for the stomach, which is physical, and both will
be destroyed. Paul then says the "body" will be raised, and since
they are joined in Spirit with the Lord, like a married couple (the bride of
Christ), they are not to commit sexual immorality and become one with
prostitutes.
In the teachings of marriage
we know that two, who come together in sexual relations, are made "one
flesh." Their spirits are joined in a marital union. When someone commits
sexual immorality, they sin against that union. If someone commits sexual
immorality with a virgin, do they sin against the physical body if their body
is in no danger of contracting a disease? Is the physical body damaged? No!
Just like with food, it is not the outward act that causes sin against the body
that Paul is referring to. It is the spiritual union with someone other than
your wife that is sin against the "mortal body." The "one
flesh" that two married couple has made together is affected.
Sexual immorality sins
against the "one spirit" that a Christian has with the Lord,
according to Paul. Food does not interfere with the relationship with the Lord.
It is the reason Gentiles did not have to abstain from pork. God made all
creation good and worthy to eat. Eating foods and drinking wine does not sin
against the "body." The body Paul is concerned with is the "one
spirit" with the Lord. Sexual immorality sins against the soul. We commit
adultery on the Lord when we commit fornication in this life. We have left our
one spirit union with Him and joined ourselves with a prostitute in sin.
Therefore we sin against the body!
"1 Corinthians
Paul has already showed it
is not the physical body that is affected by the sin of sexual immorality. It
is not the outward physical act of sin that is considered against the
"body" that will be raised. The body Paul refers to as the
"mortal body."
Showing us the nature of
the body in which a marriage inhabits shows us the nature of the body that will
rise. Sinning against the body through sexual immorality is a spiritual
reality. It is the spiritual body, the soul of a man, which was to rise on
resurrection day. The flesh that Paul speaks of is not the physical body. the flesh that was to rise and to change at the
rapture/resurrection was not the physical body. There is more than one type of
"flesh." The type of flesh Paul speaks of is not the physical body,
just like it was not the physical body that would rise or change, according to
First Corinthians 15.
<