|
First of all I want to acknowledge and thank Garrett Brown for
patiently nudging me for more than five years to look at J.S. Russell's
rapture theory. I first got acquainted with Garrett through the tapes
of the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium in Mt. Dora, Florida,
which he sponsored. This small booklet is dedicated to both Garrett and his
wife Beverly as a token of my extreme appreciation for all the many ways they
have encouraged me through the years and supported our efforts to spread the
eschatological truth. May God richly bless them in every way.
I resisted the rapture theory ("kicking and screaming") for a long
time. It just didn't make sense. At first I didn't even see it as
a "possible" interpretation. But Garrett's persistence was
eventually rewarded. It was the definition and usage of the Greek word
"harpazo" ("caught up" in 1 Thessalonica 4:17) that first
flagged my attention. Then some other texts began to leap off the page at me,
especially those which say what the first century saints were expecting to
see and experience at the Parousia. Then I noticed the total lack of
recognition of the Parousia by any post-70 writers, especially the
"apostolic fathers" who wrote immediately after AD 70. These
three factors began to work on me until I realized there is a serious
grammatical, historical and contextual problem here that we twenty-first
century Preterists have not adequately addressed. This bothered
me. I lost sleep over it. I have spent many hours at the library
ransacking the commentaries to see how they handle these problems. J.
S. Russell's theory kept coming back to haunt me. It finally became
inescapable.
I also want to thank Walt Hibbard and Arthur Melanson for being willing to
join me in teaching and promoting this view of the rapture. Both these
men are long-term players in the Preterist movement and have been a
tremendous encouragement to me. May God bless them richly.
In the pages below I will share some of the reasons I believe the rapture
theory deserves our serious consideration. I'm not suggesting this just for
fun. I know many will think this theory is about as loony as UFO mania.
But I'm after TRUTH like all of us are. And I'm simply following
where Scripture and history are forcing me to go. I wish I could stay
with popular theories, but like Luther said, "my conscience is chained
to Scripture."
Please give it your most objective
appraisal.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT ARE WE
SUGGESTING HERE?
In preparation of my speech on the "History of Eschatology" for the
2002 Bible Prophecy Conference in Sparta,
North Carolina, I was
re-reading all my church history material attempting to come to a
better understanding of the historical development of eschatological
interpretation in the post-70 church. I was reminded of the extreme
paucity of written material immediately after AD 70. This silence has
always been curious to me for many reasons.
I was also reading Sam Frost's new book, Misplaced Hope, which is an
excellent rebuttal against Jonathin Seraiah's critique of Preterism.
His book reminded me again of the extreme lack of writings by Christian
leaders immediately after AD 70. Indeed, Sam did a marvelous job of
further minimizing the number of post-70 documents even more by suggesting
that Barnabas and Clement may have been written before AD 70. This
makes the number of post-70 "Apostolic Father" writings even
fewer. It was not the purpose of Frost to solve the mystery of the
post-70 silence, but rather simply to assume it as fact throughout his
book. And it is this silence, which all church historians acknowledge,
that pushes me toward the rapture view.
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? This is the single most significant
factor shaping the history of eschatological study that I am aware of.
All of church history and its consequent interpretation of Bible Prophecy is
deeply affected by this silence. Even the so-called
"de-eschatologizing" process of New Testament theology was heavily
affected by this silence which everyone assumes indicated a
non-fulfillment.
Every student of church history is puzzled by the silence. Even
futurists acknowledge the strange absence of historical material coming from
the three decades immediately after AD 70. But no one spends much time
trying to figure out why that silence is there. It doesn't affect a
futurist eschatology nearly as much as it does the Preterist. For
futurists, it is merely a frustration. But for Preterists it is a
critical lack of documentation at the very time when we need significant
historical validation of eschatological fulfillment. Our critics often
use this lack of historical documentation as evidence against the Preterist
view. Only Scripture has absolute authority to define our doctrinal
belief system, and historical considerations can only have value when they
confirm and explain the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions. But,
historical considerations can play a very significant role in Biblical
interpretation when the Bible predicts specific, detailed and imminent
events. That detail demands fulfillment, and it is subsequent history
that either validates or nullifies it. That is the case here. The
NT writers gave specific, detailed expectations to the first century church
about what they could expect to happen very soon. Since we do not have
any historical validation of those expectations being fulfilled, a
"documentation problem" has surfaced.
It is this "silence" that this
book will examine and try to understand.
WHAT WAS THE PRE-70 CHURCH EXPECTING?
Unless we grasp how much the pre-70 church was expecting to see and
experience when the Parousia arrived, we will not understand the problem of
their silence after AD 70. So let us begin by looking at their
anticipations. What did the apostles tell them that they would see and
experience at the Parousia? Here's a great example of this: 2 Thessalonians
1:6-10 --
"For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those
who afflict you, and to GIVE RELIEF TO YOU who are afflicted and TO US AS WELL
when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in
flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to
those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the
penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from
the glory of His power, when He comes to be GLORIFIED in His saints on that
day, and to be MARVELED AT among all who have believed-for our testimony to
you was believed."
Notice what Paul promises to the Thessalonians. Their Jewish
persecutors would be repaid with affliction at the Parousia, when Christ
would come from heaven in flaming fire to destroy them. Question:
Did the Jews get that destruction in a tangible and visible way?
Did they SEE it and EXPERIENCE it? Or was it merely some kind of
"spiritualized" fulfillment that was not recognizable by the
physical senses?
Notice what else Paul says would happen at the Parousia. When Jesus was
"revealed" (implying they would see Him "unveiled") at
his coming/Parousia, he would be "glorified" by His saints on that
day, and "MARVELED AT among all who have believed."
Question: Where is the record of this happening? Did it
happen? Was it documented? Why not? Paul says they would
not only see him "revealed" at his return (a theophany), but would
"marvel at him" in the company of all other true believers.
We know it was going to happen to physically alive people since he says it
will occur at his Parousia when he gives relief to them and all others
who were alive and suffering in the tribulation at that time. When and
where did this happen? How did it happen? Why don't we have those
folks after AD 70 telling the story about how glorious it was to be in His
presence and marvel at His majesty? Why are these folks, who supposedly
were going to see this marvelous vindication and relief, so silent
afterwards? They should have been dancing in the streets! If they
were still around after seeing the Parousia and marveling at Christ in His
presence, how could they do anything but talk about it afterwards (assuming
they were still alive and on the earth)?
Their silence speaks volumes, especially since a few verses later (2 Thessalonians
2:1) Paul mentions their "gathering together to him" at His Parousia.
If this isn't a promise of a rapture, I simply don't know what else to make
of it. The silence about Christ's Parousia from folks who were
definitely promised to SEE it and experience it is very
significant! Either those folks in the first century saw it and were taken
to be with Christ immediately, or they did NOT see it at all and were so
embarrassed or disillusioned about the non-fulfillment that they went away
quietly and never spoke of it again.
But this second option is not an option for Preterists, since Paul states
emphatically that when Christ comes, His saints will see it, and they will be
vindicated and rewarded by it, and will marvel at Christ in the company of
all the other believing saints. It becomes impossible to account for
their silence afterwards unless they were removed from the scene by something
like a rapture. And that is exactly what Paul alludes to three verses
later (2 Thessalonians 2:1) when he reminds them about the "gathering to
Him" at His Parousia. How would the Thessalonians have understood
this? What would their expectations have been?
Can you imagine how they would have felt immediately after AD 70 if they had
not witnessed Christ's Parousia, nor marveled at Him in his coming, nor been
"gathered" to Him in any visible, tangible sense?
Disillusionment is not the word for it. Outrage or indignation would be
more like it. They would have been screaming "foul" at the
non-fulfillment, or the false expectations they were given by Paul!
They would have joined the chorus of the "mockers" in 2 Pet. 3:4
who were singing: "Where's the promise of His Parousia?"
Why don't we hear some complaints after AD 70? Why are they so
silent? Were they "gathered to Him" just like Paul
promised? Is that the "upward call" (Phil. 3:14) that Paul
was looking forward to? Was that the time when their old bodies would
be exchanged, or "changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51), or
"transformed" (Phil. 3:21) to be like Christ's glorious immortal
body?
1 John 3:2 is another example.
John clearly says that those who were true "children of God" would
definitely see Christ at His Parousia and become like him. This is not
apocalyptic language. There is a very real expectation here. He
says they would see Christ return and would be made like Him at His
coming. Did they see Him return? Did they remain on earth
afterwards? If so, why didn't they (apostle John especially) tell
anyone about what they saw and experienced?
John claimed they would SEE Him at his return, and that they would know it
when he came. Who can believe that John was still around and knew that
the Parousia had happened, but refused to say anything about the fulfillments
that he knew had occurred? Even if they were fulfilled in a
"spiritual-only" way he should STILL have at least explained that
much of it, if he was still around. He would still claim a past
fulfillment for the Parousia. But we don't even have that! We
have nothing from any of those apostolic men or their traveling companions
about ANY KIND of fulfillments at AD 70. Surely they didn't all die in
the persecution (Timothy, Titus, Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, Gaius, Aristarchus,
etc.)? Did all these guys fail to perceive the fulfillments? Or
were they gone with Christ? If they were still around, they would have
been UNABLE to refrain from declaring their utter amazement at the
fulfillments they had just witnessed and participated in.
Besides the 1 Thessalonians 4 text which clearly teaches a "catching
up" of the living and remaining saints at the Parousia, there are other
texts which either assert or imply a rapture. Here's another example --
John 14:3.
"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and RECEIVE YOU
TO MYSELF, that where I am, there you may be also."
Notice that Jesus promises to return to them after he has prepared a place
for them in the heavenly realm (John 14:1-3). He says he will come back
and "receive [them] to himself," so that where he is (heaven), they
would be also. Jesus also said that apostle John would "live and
remain" until He returned (John 21:22f). And Mat. 16:27-28 says
that there would be more than one of them alive at Christ's return
("some of those standing here"). Mat. 19:28 says that "in the
regeneration" (after the resurrection at the Parousia) all twelve of
them would get to be seated on thrones with Christ and judge the twelve
tribes. Notice that it says all twelve of them, not just the ones who
had already died by that time. This implies (if not outright demands)
that the rest of the apostles who lived and remained until the Parousia would
be "caught up" or "received unto" Christ in the heavenly
realm at the Parousia to sit on the twelve thrones.
This sure sounds like the same thing Paul was talking about in 1 Thessalonians
4, doesn't it? Wonder where Paul got the idea from? (Jesus
maybe? John 14:3?) You see, if Jesus didn't come back and
"receive the living and remaining ones to Himself" then there were
not 12 occupied thrones in the period (AD 66-70) when Christ was
"present" (in his Parousia) judging the twelve tribes for
their covenantal unfaithfulness. John 14:3 (along with Mat. 19:28; John
21:22f and Mat. 16:27f) forces the issue on us. There is a real thorny
"documentation problem" here. If you had been apostle John or
one of the other 12 who lived and remained until the Parousia, and you
recognized his
Parousia had occurred, yet you were not "received to Himself" and
taken to heaven where he is, and were not seated on a throne at His
side, nor riding the heavens with Him as He and His angels judged the
12 tribes and avenged the blood of His saints for that three and a half years
of His "visitation" (Parousia) -- how would you feel? Would
you be scratching your head wondering what happened? "Where is the
promise of my "reception into heaven," and my throne at Christ's
side, and my judging the twelve tribes? My eyes are not seeing what my ears
have heard promised."
It was awareness of such an "about to come" "terrifying
expectation of judgment" against the Jewish nation that drove apostle
Paul in his missionary zeal to save some of them before the End.
"Knowing therefore the TERROR of the Lord [that awaits the unbelieving
Jews] we persuade men." Indeed. But Paul didn't stop
there. He also knew that the faithful "sanctified" true
Christians would be rewarded with an "upward call" (Phil. 3:14) in
which their bodies would be "changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51)
or "transformed" (Phil. 3:21) from mortality to immortality as they
were "gathered" (2 Thessalonians 2:1;Mat. 24:31),
"received" (John 14:3), or "caught up" (1 Thes.4:17) into
the "presence" (2 Thessalonians 1:10) of Christ at His Parousia.
There are too many of these promises to simply ignore. They all
reinforce one another. The saints would have been more than
disillusioned if nothing visible or tangible happened at the Parousia.
In view of all the many apostolic statements about what they would see and
experience at the Parousia, what should we reasonably expect to hear from
them immediately after AD 70 if they were still around? We should have
heard jubilant and ecstatic claims of fulfillment coming from their mouths
and pens. Wonderful descriptions of the glorious advent of Christ from
heaven with his angels rewarding them and destroying their persecutors.
Instead, we find a "deafening silence." Therefore, we have to ask
whether these saints ever got what they were expecting!
There is no chance that the Parousia would occur and they not see it.
They would have been complaining with the "mockers" if it had not
occurred. Paul, Peter, John and all the apostles said and believed that
they would see the Parousia and experience the relief and reward that would
come with it. They would marvel at him in His Parousia. So if
they were still around, the only way they could be silent about it is if the Parousia
didn't occur at all. If it occurred, they would have seen it and
experienced it. If they were still around afterwards they would have said
something or wrote something about it. Fiery torture could not have
kept them from proclaiming it from the housetops. They would have been
ecstatic.
And it is not just the apostles who were silent. All the leadership of
the church is silent. People like Luke, Timothy, Titus, Apollos,
Barnabas, Silas, Gaius, and Aristarchus are silent as well. Surely not
all of these guys were killed in the persecution. Some of them must
have survived beyond AD 70 if there was no rapture. Why didn't some of
them say something about the fulfillments they had just witnessed at the Parousia?
The whole church and all the apostolic traveling companions and leadership
were silent about the Parousia.
The New Testament canon closed abruptly at
AD 70, and left us hanging without any information about when, where, and how
these leaders died, or where they were buried. They vanish without a
trace leaving no record of what their experience of the Parousia was
like.
The post-70 church which was composed of those who were left behind,
obviously failed to recognize the time of Christ's second
"visitation," the same way the Jews failed to acknowledge His first
coming.
o Luke 19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within
you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did
not recognize the time of your VISITATION."
o 1 Pet. 2:12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the
thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good
deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of VISITATION.
This later passage by Peter implies that the saints would know it when Christ
returned. His true saints expected to see and experience the
vindication and reward on that day of visitation. Well, did they get
their reward and see his return? Why didn't they say anything about
it? Why the silence? Were they ashamed of Christ at His
coming? The NT writers say only the wicked would shrink away in shame
at His coming. His saints would draw near and glorify Him and marvel at
Him in his presence! I don't see how that joy and ecstasy could have
subsided so completely and rapidly by AD 71 and following.
Something is wrong with this picture. If these folks were still around,
they would be venting their exuberation and exhilaration. Where is
it? Why don't we hear it? Why the silence?
|