Silence and the Rapture

(Part 1)   (Part 2)   (Part 3)

 

 

HOW DID THIS AFFECT THE ON-GOING CHURCH?

In the second century when it became apparent to the church fathers that the eschatological events had not occurred in the first generation as predicted (according to their nature of fulfillment expectations), they began to separate the redemptive prophecies from the eschatological prophecies.  They started claiming the redemptive prophecies had been fulfilled, but that the eschatological prophecies were still future (but imminent).   There are occasional references in the Church Fathers to a complete fulfillment of the "soteriological" (redemptive) prophecies, mainly in the apologists against  the Jews.  But nowhere do they claim the eschatological prophecies were fulfilled. 

In the NT the apostles discussed soteriology (salvation) in tight connection with eschatology (final things).  By the middle of the second century, the Church Fathers had already disconnected eschatology from soteriology and were claiming that all the soteriology was fulfilled, but that the eschatology was still future. 

By the middle of the second century they began to postulate a slight delay in the return of Christ.  In my debate with Joseph Balyeat (1992) posted on the IPA web site, and in my two responses to Dr. Kenneth Gentry (STEVENS RESPONSE TO GENTRY) and Gary DeMar (QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE) available in book form from IPA, I explained how this shift in the Church's understanding of the TIMING occurred.

This ignorance of the left behind folks also explains why the church went into immediate confusion and made so many departures from the NT patterns so soon after AD 70.  Their leadership was gone.  But at least they did have the  writings of the NT to guide them, and those should have been sufficient to keep them on track.  But they didn't follow them closely enough. 

WHEN DID THIS OCCUR AND HOW DO WE LABEL IT?

So where does this place the rapture chronologically, and how do we classify this particular rapture position in relation to the tribulation?  I see the rapture as occurring in AD 66, at the time the Jewish war with Rome was shaping up. This was the time when Christ appeared, raised the rest of the dead out of Hades, raptured the "living and remaining ones" and began his three and a half year PRESENCE (Parousia) from AD 66-70.

Josephus mentions that they saw the angelic armies in the clouds in AD 66 just before the war with Rome began. Tacitus, Eusebius and the Talmudic writings also mention these same kinds of things happening at this time.  The faithful saints, the true believers (not the mere "professers" or "sleepers" who were left behind) were "caught up" to accompany Christ and His angelic  armies the whole time while their persecutors (the Jews) were being destroyed  (AD 66-70).  This was the three and a half year parousia (presence) of Christ to judge the Jewish nation for their covenantal unfaithfulness and vindicate the Church.  So, here's the chronological sequence that I'm suggesting for the rapture:

1. AD 62-66 (Satan released for short time -- Great Tribulation on the Church)
2. AD 66 (the Return of Christ, Resurrection, Rapture)
3. AD 66-70 (Christ's continued presence for Wrath and Judgment)

Notice there is a seven-year period involved here.  The rapture occurs in the middle of that period after the Great Tribulation on the Church, but before the Wrath is poured out upon the Jewish nation.  This would be classified as a "mid-trib" or pre-wrath position, depending on how the "tribulation" is defined.  If both the tribulation on the church and the wrath outpouring on  the Jewish nation are included in the definition of the "tribulation" then the rapture would be "mid-trib."  If we define "tribulation" as being only the tribulation on the church, and the wrath outpouring as what happened to the unbelieving Jews, then this concept of the rapture could be called "post-trib, pre-wrath."  But the best term to classify it is "mid-trib." 

I understand the Parousia to have been a three and a half year PRESENCE (AD 66-70) in which He judged the Jewish nation for "all the blood that has been  shed on earth from the blood of Abel" until AD 66.  Christ came in AD 66 to begin that judgment.  He resurrected the dead out of Hades (in the unseen realm) and "snatched away" his living and remaining true saints to him in the heavenly realm.  The twelve apostles sat on thrones next to him as He rode the heavens with his angelic armies to judge the Jewish nation.  They all accompanied Christ in the unseen heavenly realm and watched their vindication and avengement upon the Jewish nation. 

HAD ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?

Some questions we need to consider:  Why is this rapture idea so difficult for modern thinkers to accept?  Is it really something totally new that God had never done before?  Why didn't the ones left behind see it happen, or at least discern that it had happened? 

I suspect that one of the big reasons why so many folks today have difficulty accepting the idea of a rapture is because of our technological mindset which considers supernatural events a little far-fetched and hard to believe.  So many of us look for a naturalistic explanation for every miracle in the Bible so that we can minimize the miraculous events down to a "safe" non-threatening level.  This is nothing more than "dumbing down" the Bible to fit our modern mindset, rather than educating our hearts to understand what the Biblical writers were really saying. 

There is nothing "out of character" for God to rescue or reward His servants  with something like a rapture or an escape from threatening circumstances.   He had done similar things many times throughout the Bible (e.g. Enoch, Noah, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah, Moses & the Exodus, and all the resurrections of folks). 

Elijah and Elisha were "seers" in the sense that they could see into the spiritual realm and see angelic activity that all other humans were not permitted to see.  Apostle Paul was "caught up" into the third heaven to see  some of those things.  John in the book of Revelation was also able to "see" these things.  The two witnesses in Rev. 11 were taken up to heaven, as was the male child in Rev. 12.  Stephen at his martyrdom saw Jesus standing in the heavenly realm.  Philip was "snatched away" from the desert road and  found himself at Azotus.  The angels became visible at Jesus' birth.  The transfiguration enabled some of Jesus' disciples to see Moses and Elijah who were not normally visible.  The ascension was attended by two angels, and they saw Jesus ascend into the Glory Cloud.  Apostle Paul saw and heard things at his conversion that no others standing close by were able to discern.  Enoch and Elijah were actually "caught up" in a similar way to Jesus' ascension, without experiencing physical death. 

The parousia of Christ in AD 66 was attended with his angels.  Josephus records the sighting of the angels in the clouds.  This was one of those "theophanies" which had repeatedly occurred throughout the Old Testament  period.  God's presence and activity was not always seen by human eyes .   Usually it only "appeared" to those to whom God wished it to be seen by.

 There were those occasions when the clouds were literally rolled back like a scroll to open a window into the heavenly realm so that men on earth could see what was going on there.  This is not "out of character" for God's dealings with his creatures.  It is simply "out of experience" for people since God consummated his plan of redemption at AD 70.  It is not something that we have seen since AD 70.  Therefore, we have a hard time believing it  happened back then also. 

It was only seen by those whom Christ wanted it to be seen by.  That was the way the "theophanies" of God throughout redemptive history always occurred. 

They were not seen by everyone.  Sometimes it was only the enemies who saw His appearance just before they were destroyed, or only the righteous, true followers of God who were spiritual enough to be allowed to see it.  The rest were left in the dark, or "left behind."  The parable of the wise and foolish virgins, and other passages about being sanctified and blameless in order to  "see" the Lord at His parousia  give us a hint that those who were "foolish" or not "sanctified" would not see this event, nor even know that it occurred.

 It evidently was a matter of "spiritual discernment."  There is nothing at  all "out of character" with the sightings of angelic armies in the clouds mentioned by Josephus.  It perfectly fits the OT pattern of theophanies and angelic appearances.  This was a real event that historically validates the prophetic accounts in our NT.  Jesus said there would be angels with Him when He returned in the clouds.  Why should it surprise us if it really happened that way?  Why is it so hard to believe? 

The ones left behind did not recognize the time of Christ's visitation, and therefore did not teach a fulfilled eschatology.  But they kept right on thinking and teaching that Christ's return was imminent in their lifetime and in their generation, until it became evident in the second century that it had not been fulfilled according to their expectations of the TIME.  There were three writers who suggested this delay concept (Shepherd of Hermas, Justin, and 2 Clement).  They started manipulating the time statements by suggesting there might be a slight delay (but still imminent).  That delay got extended further and further until eventually there was no thought of anything but an indefinite delay.  It never seemed to occur to them that their expectations about the NATURE of the event had been wrong and that the event had already occurred.

HAS ANYONE ELSE EVER SUGGESTED THIS?

I am not the first one to invent this rapture idea.  Four scholars a century ago (J.S. Russell, Milton S. Terry, Richard Weymouth, and Ernest Hampden-Cook) suggested the AD 70 rapture idea, and wrote several pages in defense of it in their books. They suggested that there may have been a rapture of the true Christians, so that the mere professing (but not true) "Christians" were left behind to carry on.  I am merely reminding all of us about their theory, and asking us to keep it in the back of our mind as the best way (maybe the only way) of resolving the "documentation problem." 

These four scholars were certainly not superstitious wackos.  They were well-educated theologians of their day, yet understood the spiritual way in which God accomplishes his work.  They recognized that the rapture fit the pattern of God's theophanies and redemptive work in the Old Testament.

And the rapture idea was not invented in the 1800's by a Scottish girl named MacDonald.  Numerous church fathers mention the "catching up" in their discussion about the end time events.  The Greek fathers especially used it  in the sense of a literal catching up from the earth into heaven.  They were in a much better position to know what it meant than we are.  If they understood the Greek word "harpazo" to mean a literal "snatching away" from earth to heaven, it would be a little presumptuous for us to redefine the word using some spiritualizing concept.  So it is not new at all to suggest that the saints would be "caught up" from earth to heaven at the parousia.   The early church understood it that way and mentioned it in their writings.

CONCLUSION:

In summation, I would affirm that the rapture scenario that I have outlined here provides a much better explanation of the "documentation problem" for the parousia, resurrection and judgment than any that have surfaced so far in the preterist movement. And I believe it provides the reason why there was such a remarkable silence in the period immediately after AD 70 when we would expect the early church to be announcing the parousia in a big way.  Documentation was lacking because there was no one left behind to tell the  story. 

This is the only historically plausible explanation I have seen to account for the ignorance of the post-70 church.  If there was not a rapture, there should have been plenty of Christians still around after AD 70 who had witnessed the Parousia, and some of them (especially the apostles or their traveling companions) would have said something about it if they were still around.  If apostle John was still around (which this rapture theory denies), surely he would have said something about what he had just seen at AD 70.  It is impossible (in my thinking) for John to have still been on earth after AD 70 and not say something about the Parousia having occurred.  The only way Preterists can have a plausible explanation for this "deafening silence" is a rapture.

We modern preterists have danced around this problem and swept it under the carpet for decades.  We have lacked a historically, grammatically and contextually credible answer.  So far the only thing that has been forthcoming is what those four scholars (Russell, Terry, Weymouth, Hampden-Cook) suggested a century ago -- a rapture!  

This theory is the only explanation that has answered the problem in a convincing and satisfactory manner for me.  It makes more sense to me than any of the other theories that have been offered so far.  The texts I mentioned above, the "documentation problem," and the "deafening silence" have forced me to move in this direction.  All I can do is urge you to take a serious look at it.  If it doesn't make sense to you, no problem.  Let me know what you think about it.  Would love to have your evaluation of it.  Thanks for considering it.