Silence
and the Rapture
DIDN'T JOHN & OTHERS LIVE BEYOND AD 70?
Those reading this might very well object that there is a strong tradition that
John the apostle lived beyond AD 70 until the reign of Domitian. If he
did, the "reception into heaven" promise of John 14:3 was not
fulfilled. It means John would have been left behind, and that
cannot be. If John's longevity beyond AD 70 could be proven, it would
certainly bring the rapture theory into serious question.
The continuation of apostle John beyond AD 70 is a complex historical problem,
as Kenneth Gentry has noted in his book, BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL (pages
47ff). Since Gentry believes the rapture is merely the "catching
up" of all living saints to heaven at a supposed yet future "end of
history," he naturally has no problem believing John lived beyond AD 70,
but he mentions that there are those who did take another position on
that. Some church father writings failed to understand which "Domitian"
was being discussed in regard to the persecution of Christians.
What is not widely known is that one of Nero's legal names was
"Domitian." This created confusion about WHEN John was exiled
to
This tradition about there being two different "Domitians" (one of
them Nero) is not the only evidence against John's longevity on the earth
beyond AD 70. There is also church father evidence that there were two
different "Johns" in
We know that John and "some" of the other twelve apostles would live
up until the time of the Parousia (Mat. 16:27f), but there is no clear
reference to their staying on earth afterwards. In fact, we have
some fairly clear statements that they would not remain on earth, but rather go
to heaven where Christ was at His Parousia (John 14:3).
The statements in John 21:22-23 when compared to Mat. 16:28; John 14:3, 1 Corinthians
15:51 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 are interesting. John was promised that
he would remain until Christ returned, at which time he and the other remaining
apostles would be "received" to heaven where Christ was. Some
might have simply thought that meant that he would never die (if they were aware
of Jesus' promise to the apostles to "receive them to himself" at the
Parousia).
John is quick to point out that it did
not necessarily mean that he wouldn't die. BUT, and this is the big point
that is missed by most, John didn't rule out the possibility that he might NOT
live on earth beyond the Parousia. If there were no thoughts of a
possible "ascension" or "rapture" he would have quickly and
clearly affirmed that he would eventually die. The way John hedges his
statements here looks to me like he remembered what Jesus had promised in Mat.
19:28 and John 14:3. He was holding out the hope that he would be
"received to Christ" at the Parousia to sit on one of the twelve
thrones at Christ's side as He judged and avenged their persecutors for three
and a half years (AD 66-70). If John had this "reception into
heaven" in mind at the time he wrote the book (and I certainly believe
that he did), then he is simply saying that he will remain alive on earth
until the Parousia, at which time he would be caught up to be with Christ to
sit on one of the 12 thrones. He may not have been sure what this meant
for his physical body, similar to Paul's uncertainty about his being caught up
to the third heaven. He didn't know whether it was "in the
body" or "out of the body." I see John 14:3 and Mat. 19:28
in the background of his statements in John 21:22, both texts implying a
rapture of the apostles at Christ's return. This explains why John is
seemingly so guarded about whether he would die or not. He wasn't exactly
sure what that would be like and what it would mean for his physical
body.
I believe John and the rest of the remaining apostles and true Christians (the
"saints" or sanctified ones) were "caught up" to be with
Christ at His Parousia (but not the mere professing or untrue
Christians). If they had still been around after AD 70 they would have
mentioned the fulfillments that had just occurred, especially if apostle
John was one of the ones still around. John literally "wrote the
book" on AD 70 (the book of Revelation).
For him to have been around afterwards and
not mention the fulfillments of the book he wrote is more than a
"documentation problem." It would raise serious objections
against the whole Preterist view. I think the full weight of this problem
needs to be felt by Preterists, and answered in a convincing way. We have
brushed it off and ignored it to our own hurt. It's time we took it
seriously and dealt with it.
This silence not only affects the Preterist view, but the partial Preterist as
well. If AD 70 was some kind of "judgment coming" in some sense
as they suggest, why didn't some of the post-70 writers who lived on both sides
of AD 70 mention the fulfillments of Mat. 24:1-34, at least as a limited coming
idea? We don't even have that! It is as if AD 70 never
happened. They don't even mention it, much less even give it some kind of
limited coming status.
If John the apostle was still around and saw no value in explaining or even
mentioning the incredible fulfillments of his book, why should we? Was it
because he didn't understand the fulfillments, or was it because he simply did
not SEE Christ at his Parousia? The later facilitates the former.
If he didn't SEE the Parousia, then he would not have understood the fulfillment,
and would not have been able to claim or explain the fulfillment. In 1
John 2:18,28 and 3:2 he indicates that they would KNOW it when Christ returned,
and would SEE it happen. Well, did they? Or did even John the
apostle fail to "recognize the time of His visitation" the same way
the Jews did? John was supposed to be sitting on a throne judging the 12 tribes
after Christ's return, not meandering about the Ephesian countryside delivering
quiet platitudes about "love one another" (as the Roman Catholics
would have us believe). I simply see it as more consistent to
believe that John was "received" up into heaven at the Parousia where
he sat with Christ in judgment upon the Jewish nation during that three and one
half year "presence" (AD 66-70) of Christ (the Parousia). If he
had still remained on earth, he would surely have recognized the fulfillments
and said something about it.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE LEFT BEHIND?
Those left behind simply did not realize what had happened. They might have
thought the leadership all died in the tribulation, or were exiled, put in
prison, or otherwise consumed by the Romans in their galley ships, theaters, or
mining camps. They were not spiritually discerning and therefore missed
the Parousia, resurrection, rapture and judgment. They were spiritually
asleep when Christ returned.
It is also possible that the number of folks "snatched away" might
have been smaller than we think. In Luke 18:8 Jesus said, "...when
the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" And in Mat.
24:10-24, "At that time many will fall away ... Many false prophets will
arise and will mislead many. ...most people's love will grow cold. ...For false
Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and
wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." There
is a significant implication here that there might not be a large number of
true saints left at the time of Christ's return.
Because the ones left behind were not true Christians at the time of the
rapture, they were not spiritually discerning enough to recognize that the
Parousia had taken place. They couldn't document something they didn't see or
even know occurred. They were like the 50 prophets who watched as Elijah
was taken to heaven in chariots of fire. They did not see what Elisha
saw. They were not spiritual enough to see into the heavenly realm like
Elisha was (2 Kings 2). All they saw was a tornado whisk Elijah up into
the air. They went looking for his body for three days, in spite of the
fact that Elisha told them what had really happened.
The ones "left behind" did not know that Christ had returned, and had
not seen it because they were not allowed to be privy to it. So they
could not tell anyone about it. This absence of the true Christians
immediately after AD 70 would certainly explain the "deafening
silence" that occurred, and the lack of information we have about all the
apostles and their close disciples and traveling companions.
The post-70 "left behind" church had the writings of the apostles
(our New Testament) to plant in the hearts of men and grow a new crop of
Christians. And that is how the church perpetuated itself, in spite
of the fact that the apostles and their traveling companions and all the true
and faithful Christians were "snatched away."
as of 12-2005