DID THE RESURRECTION OF SAINTS "BEGIN" IN MATTHEW 27:52?
I've seen many appeal to Matthew 27:52 in asserting that a number of saints were "resurrected" immediately after the Lord's resurrection, and that they therefore ascended with Him. They say that this verse proves that the resurrection of the saints occurs in "phases" or "stages". Aside from the glaring problems I see with that interpretation, I saw something today regarding the Greek which may add a new wrinkle to the verses in question. This is long, but I can almost guarantee that anyone who reads thru this will come away at least with your interest piqued, and there's even a possibility that you'll be edified. This is a deep word study, which may well change the way you view Matthew 27:52,53 from this point on. Look at the verses:
Matthew 27:52-53: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
At first glance, it certainly appears as if these saints rose from the dead (whether or not one believes they were "resurrected") after the Lord's resurrection. The one thing that strikes me as odd, however, is how those two verses seem to be out of place chronologically in comparison to the verses which precede and follow them:
Matthew 27:50-58: "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. 57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus 'disciple: 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered."
Notice how verse 50 describes the Lord's death. Verse 51 describes the veil being torn in two, the earth quaking, and rocks crumbling. Skip now for a moment to verse 54, where it says that the centurion (and those with him) were not only "watching Jesus", but also saw "those things that were done". What things did they see? Well, again, according to the preceding verses, they saw the earthquake, the rocks crumble, the dead rise, and the veil torn (perhaps that was told to them right after the news went out). But the key here is that they had been "watching Jesus". So ALL of the things they were witnessing must have happened immediately after the Lord's death (including the saints rising from their graves).
Now, bear with me, and now look at verses 55-58. Here we see the women who were "beholding afar off". So they were witnessing the same events which the centurion had. Verse 57 goes on to specifically say "when even was come", Joseph of Arimathaea went to Pilate to ask for the Lord's body. So that bolsters the notion that all of them (the centurion and those with him; the women; and Joseph of Arimathaea) were physically near the cross (or at least within sight) of ALL the events immediately surrounding the Lord's last breath on the cross (to reiterate: the Lord's death; the earthquake; the rocks crumbling; AND the saints coming out of their graves).
You may ask, "How can that be if verse 53 says that the saints didn't come out of their graves until 'after his resurrection'?!?"
This is where it gets REALLY interesting (at least, to me). Again, the backbone of my argument is that verses 52 and 53 would seem very out of place for the above reasons if the dead didn't come out of their graves until three days later. But there is something else interesting I've realized, and it centers around the Greek ("KJV-only"ers, perhaps you should look away for a few minutes). Take a look:
Matthew 27:53- "And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
The word there which translates as "resurrection" is the Greek "έγερσις" ("egersis"). What does it mean? According the Blue Letter Bible (and Strong's), it means:
1)a rousing, excitation
2)a rising up
3)resurrection from the dead
The key point is that this verse is the only instance in which this particular word is used in the NT. Well, what about the Lord's "resurrection"? What word is used to describe that? I'm glad you asked:
Acts 1:21-22: "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."
Here's another:
Acts 2:31- "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
Without posting every verse, the point is that the word being used in these verses (as well as every other verse which describes the Lord's resurrection), is the Greek "άνάστασις" ("anastasis"). It's derived from "ana" ("up", "back", "again") and "stasis" ("a period of inactivity"; "stoppage"). What does it mean? As you can see, it means (paraphrasing) "back from inactivity". Pretty straight forward. How does Strong's define it?
1)a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
2)a rising from the dead
a)that of Christ
b)that of all men at the end of this
present age
c)the resurrection of certain ones in
history who were restored to life
(Hebrews 11:35)
Of the 42 times in which that particular word is used in Scripture, it means "resurrection" 39 times, "rising again" 1 time, "that should rise" 1 time, and "raised to life again" 1 time. In addition, not only was it used to describe the Lord's resurrection, but also to describe the resurrection of the rest of us:
Matthew 22:30- "For in the resurrection (Gk. "anastasis") they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
John 5:29- "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection ("anastasis") of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection ("anastasis") of damnation."
Revelation 20:5-6: "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection ("anastasis"). 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection ("anastasis"): on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
There is no question whatsoever that this word describes the resurrection of not only the Lord, but also of believers. So why is "egersis" (again, only used once in Scripture) being used in Matthew 27:53 to describe the Lord's resurrection? Here's the answer: It's NOT describing the Lord's resurrection! Look at the verses again:
Matthew 27:52-53: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
We've already looked at the word "resurrection" there, but what about the word "his"? It's actually the Greek "αύτος" ("autos"). What does it mean, according to Strong's?
1)herself, himself, themselves, itself
2)he, she, it
3)the same
Let me be clear about this. "αύτος" is nonspecific. This isn't breaking any rules of grammar or meaning. "αύτος" can also be referring to 3rd person singular or plural. By "themselves", it also means "their". Context is what determines whether "αύτος" is referring to "his", "hers", or "theirs". So what does this all mean? Well, it means that this is likely to have been a blunder by the translators. How can it just as rightly read?
Matthew 27:52-53: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after THEIR resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
"Whoa!!! How dare you say that, John?!? You heretic. How could you question the preserved word?"
Make no mistake about it. I'm not questioning God's Word. I'm only questioning the translators' choice of words, given the actual meaning of "αύτος". Remember, verses 52 and 53 seem oddly out of place, given that the immediate preceding and subsequent verses aren't yet describing the Lord's resurrection at all, but rather the moments immediately following His death. Even more, they seem to be inherently linked. So by it saying "after their resurrection", there is now nothing at all odd about verses 52 and 53. They flow smoothly between verses 50 and 58 in that they ALL now describe the events IMMEDIATELY following His death. No skipping from crucifixion scene to resurrection scene and back to crucifixion scene again.
Look again at verse 52. Do you see the word "arose"? It's the Greek "έγείρω" ("egeirō"). What does it mean? "To arouse from sleep, to awake". You can see some similarity in spelling compared to the "egersis" of verse 53. So now look at the verses again:
Matthew 27:52-53: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept AWOKE 53 And came out of the graves after THEIR resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Do you see it?
Now let's take this to it's natural conclusion. If Matthew 27:53 really is describing a "resurrection" of the saints out of their graves, does it mean that they experienced THE "resurrection" even before the Lord's?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Who is the firstborn of the dead? The Lord:
Colossians 1:18- "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
1 Corinthians 15:23- "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
Who was resurrected first? Who is the "firstfruits"? The Lord Jesus is. No question about it. When does Paul say that every other believer will be resurrected? "at His coming". Look a few verses earlier:
1 Corinthians 15:20- "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."
This is a "KJV special". If Paul really meant "the firstfruits of them that SLEPT", it suggests that there were some saints who were sleeping, but now they're risen. Pretribulationism couples this with Matthew 27:53 in order to suggest that these saints went with the Lord to Heaven at His ascension (even though not a single verse in Scripture says this, and Peter was clear that David had not ascended- Acts 2:34). We've already seen, however, that the translation of Matthew 27:53 is on very shaky ground. But what about "slept"? That's easy. The Greek word in 1 Cor 15:20 is "κοιμαω" ("koimaō"). What does it mean, according to Strong's?
1)to cause to sleep, put to sleep
2)metaph.
a)to still, calm, quiet
b)to fall asleep, to sleep
c)to die
I want to make it clear that there is no specificity of tense (past, present, or future) with this word. An equally acceptable reading of 1 Cor 15:20, therefore, is:
1 Corinthians 15:20- "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that SLEEP."
"Whoa! John, are you suggesting 'soul sleep'?!?" Anyone who knows me, knows that I personally don't see the Scriptural evidence for "soul sleep", although some do. I believe that the body is what's "sleeping", but the soul is awake, alert, and "present with Lord (Who's omnipresent) in "Abraham's bosom", awaiting the resurrection (that was also the unanimous understanding of the early church fathers, by the way). I didn't want to broach this topic with this study, but it really ends up being unavoidable.
Regardless, I think the above argument reveals error of the translators, and blows a hole in the popular pretrib argument that the resurrection of the saints occurs in "stages". There is no way that the saints could have experienced THE resurrection before the Lord's resurrection, but REMEMBER that the word for "resurrection" ("egersis") in Matthew 27:53 is different from EVERY other verse which describes THE "resurrection" ("anastasis").
What I'm saying is that the saints in Matthew 27:52,53 did not experience THE resurrection. What they experienced was "a rousing, excitation" (as Strong's defines it). They arose from the dead based on the sheer magnitude of the Lord's death (think of how in 2 Kings 13:21, we read about a man rising from the dead after his own dead body was accidentally dropped against Elisha's dead bones).
So what probably terrified those who put the Lord to death? Seeing the earthquake, the veil being torn in two, the rocks crumbling, AND the dead coming out of their graves. Everyone in Jerusalem saw these events, and now knew that this was no ordinary man who had been crucified. And He would prove that three days later.
In any case, that's why we never read about those particular saints again after Matthew 27:53. My contention is that they died again later on, and will be resurrected ("anastasis") at "the last day" (John 6:40), at His coming (1 Cor 15:23), at "the last trump" (1 Cor 15:52), and do you know what that will be called? That's right: "the FIRST resurrection" (Revelation 20:4-6).
Anyone want to try and tell you differently? Tell them to read this:
2 Timothy 2:16-18: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection ("anastasis") is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
"Stages"? Not according to Scripture.
Grace to you,
John
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The three Views on the Rapture: Pre-Mid-or Post Tribulation
.jpg)
When are we out of here?
When I embarked on this study, I didn't want to read outside commentaries, because I didn't want to risk being biased one way or another. I know that with diligence and prayer, the Holy Spirit is our teacher. The first question I asked myself was: "What did the Lord say?" The generally accepted belief is that the church leaves prior to the tribulation, and comes back with Him at His second coming. It doesn't seem that the Lord gives any indication of that, however:
Matthew 25:31- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"
The only "group" who the Lord reveals as coming back with Him are His "holy angels" ("hagios aggelos"). No mention of the church/body/bride returning with Him. What did Paul say?
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."
This is clearly referring to the Lord's second coming, as He takes vengeance on His enemies. Again, no mention of the church/body/bride coming with Him...only the angels. Then what does it say? That He "shall come to be glorified in his saints". When does this happen? "...in that day." In the day that the Lord returns to exact vengeance on His enemies, He comes to be glorified in His saints. One might argue that Jude 14, 15 and 1 Thess 3:13 are indications that the church, does, in fact, come with Him, but what do they say?"
1 Thessalonians 3:13- "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints."
The problem with this assumption is that the word for "saints" is the Greek "hagios", which is used in many applications in the NT, including references to the Holy Spirit, Jerusalem, the Lord Himself, and even the angels, as is used in Matthew 25:31 which I quoted above ("hagios aggelos").
Jude 1:14,15- "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
One will notice the remarkable similarity to the noncanonical Book of Enoch:
1 Enoch 1:9- "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
This reference to "holy ones" seems to be pointing toward angels. Why? Look at the verses before it, where the author of the Book of Enoch makes a distinction, as speaks of the "elect":
1 Enoch 1:2-8: "Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, [And appear from His camp] And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heaven. And all shall be smitten with fear, And the Watchers shall quake, And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. And the high mountains shall be shaken, And the high hills shall be made low, And shall melt like wax before the flame. And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder, And all that is upon the earth shall perish, And there shall be a judgment upon all (men). But with the righteous He will make peace, And will protect the elect, And. mercy shall be upon them. And they shall all belong to God, And they shall be prospered, And they shall all be blessed. And He will help them all, And light shall appear unto them, And He will make peace with them."
Revelation 19:14 speaks of "armies" coming with the Lord, but when I read Matthew 25:31 and 2 Thess 1:7-10 (both of which I quoted above), I know for certain that angels are coming with Him, but He didn't speak of the "bride" coming with Him. So could the church be "part" of the armies? Possibly, but the Lord didn't reveal that. Some argue that if the wedding announcement is made in Revelation 19, and the clean, white linen of the saints is their righteousness, then surely the church is coming with Him. I made two notes on this. First of all, there are several descriptions of angels in the NT, being dressed in white linen, and even in Revelation 15:
Revelation 15:6- "And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles."
So one couldn't honestly say that a description of the attire of the saints is exclusive to them, when no desciption of an angel's attire is anything other than "clean" or "white". The second point regarding Revelation 19 is that we don't read of an actual "marriage" of the bride and bridegroom happening prior to the Lord's return. Something so magnificent should surely be described in detail, but we don't find it. At least I couldn't. The first real mention of the adorned bride is in Revelation 21. What else should be considered is that there aren't many men who would take their brides into battle with them. They would, however, go to battle with the enemy in order to rescue their brides.
The points I wanted to make with all of this is that the Lord only speaks of coming with His holy angels. In Matthew 24:31, the Lord says that He sends His angels to "gather together" the elect from the four corners of the sky. Even there, which most pre-tribulationists consider to be the second coming, no mention of the church/bride/body coming with the Lord. Only the Lord saying that His angels will gather together the elect. "Elect" only refers to the church saints when one reads the NT epistles. I wondered why anyone would suddenly want to suggest that the Lord was using a different definition for it in Matthew 24. After all, weren't the apostles themselves very familiar with the context with which the Lord used the word "elect"? Why else would they use it as a reference to the "church saints"? After all, in the opening verses of Matthew 24, we read of His audience. It was His apostles. How do we know this? Because it says that His "disciples" went to Him "privately". These apostles were the future church He was speaking to. He said that "you" will be killed (Matthew 24:9). And how does the Lord reference His "coming"? "Parousia" and "erchomai". They both seem to be a reference to His second coming. When Peter describes the hope of the believer in 1 Peter 1, he speaks of this hope being realized at the Lord's revelation/"apokalypto" at the last time/"eschatos". Why would Peter be writing to the church about our hope being realized at the "last time"?
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, we read Paul write "regarding our gathering together". He then goes on to say that this will not be until after the man of perdition is revealed...not before (verse 3). Consider first of all that the word "gathering together" there is the same Greek word which is used for "gather together" in Matthew 24:31...only a different tense. Secondly, Why would Paul be trying to comfort the church at Thessalonika about the "day of the Lord' if one believes that He just finished elating them in 1 Thessalonians 4 with news that the Lord would "rapture" the church out prior to any tribulation? He wouldn't have had to. They should have been very secure and edified in knowing that Paul assured them that the church would be gone moments before any of this was going to take place, unless, of course, that's not at all what Paul was saying in 1 Thess 4:17.
Keep in mind that the "coming" which Paul is speaking of in 1 Thess 4:15 is the "parousia" return of the Lord:
1 Thessalonians 4:13- "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope."
The first question here is this: Why would Paul need to give them hope about those who were "asleep"? All Paul would have needed to say to settle the matter was "Hey, no worries! They're with the Lord right now! Why are you sorrowful!?!?" Why would Paul need to encourage them by speaking of the resurrection of their bodies? It's a major point. Paul shouldn't have had to lift their collective spirits by speaking of the resurrection of their bodies. The encouragement must have been regarding the resurrection of them body and soul (just as the Lord was resurrected). The Lord wasn't resurrected only body or only spirit, correct? Aren't we to be resurrected in the same way as Him? Aren't we to be "changed" (1 Cor 15)? Paul was comforting them in that they would see their loved ones again, but it would be at His "parousia"; not some "temporary" coming.
1 Thessalonians 4:14- "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
People read this and say "Aha! Evidence that the church is coming with Him!" But again, the Lord only speaks of the angels coming with Him. Secondly, Paul clarifes verse 14 with the subsequent verses:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-18: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
What this does not say is that the Lord and the church "return" to Heaven. Anyone who is intellectually honest will admit to that, because anything else would be adding in to the text. It could easily mean that our coming "with" Him is from the sky to earth (as Matthew 24:30,31 clearly speaks of). So what herald's this "meeting" of 1 Thess 4? "A shout", with "a voice", and "the trump". How does Paul elaborate on this further in 1 Corinthians 15:52? "The last trump". "Last" means "last", does it not? If the "rapture" happens prior to the tribulation, and that happening at the "last trump", there should be no other Heavenly trumps being blown afterwards, yet we read of seven others being blown, beginning in Revelation 8. The deriviation of "last" there is "eschatos", which is literally last in a series of whatever one is speaking of. Obviously, we use it to discuss "eschatology". Again, how can the "eschatos" trump be blown prior to any of the other ones which the angels begin blowing in Revelation 8? It shouldn't. However, if it's blown at the Lord's second coming, it would make perfect sense. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the "last trump" is synonymous with the seventh trumpet. What I am saying is that "last" means "last".
So who is Paul speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15 anyway?
1 Corinthians 15:22-24: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
Paul is speaking of all believers. "All" means "all". He doesn't make any type of differentiation between "church saints" and "tribulation saints". If he had, the church would be divided. That's a modern invention of Western Christianity. "All" means "all". The failure to see the obvious also occurs with Revelation 20, when the "first resurrection" is described. Doesn't "first" mean "first"? When one takes the punctuation away from Revelation 20, it seems that this is not just speaking of martyred saints. Another group is sitting on thrones at the start of Revelation 20.
So, when were we suddenly given liberty to redefine words in Scripture? Certainly, when the Lord spoke to Peter with "agape" and "phileo", words undoubtedly had meaning then. I don't believe, then, that we have authority to redefine them either. "Last" means "last". "All" means "all". "First" means "first". "Last trump"; "shall all ("they that are Christ's") be made alive"; "first resurrection".
Some argue that Revelation 3:10 speaks of the church being removed prior to the "hour of testing". Let me quote the verses:
Revelation 3:10- "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."
The explanation that some give is that "from" is derived from "ek", and speaks of our being removed "from" prior to the tribulaton, but I found that to be only part of the meaning. One must also look at "keep", the derivation of which is from the Greek "tereo". The only other place you'll find these two words used together exactly as they're used together in Revelation 3 is in John 17, in which the Lord is praying to the Father:
John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."
Notice that He's praying very specifically that God the Father not take them out of the world, but rather that He would "keep" them "from" ("tereo autos ek") the evil one. Most will say that this is only regarding the apostles, but one only needs look a few verses along:
John 17:20- "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"
This speaks of the entire lot of the redeemed. What is He keeping us from? His own wrath against nonbelievers. Many will say that God's "wrath" is the entire tribulation, and quote 1 Thessalonians 5 to bolster their claims that we won't be here:
1 Thessalonians 5:9- "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Why would Paul be comparing a temoral, tribulation period of suffering ("wrath") with an eternal destination ("salvation")? He should be comparing an eternal destination with an eternal destination. That would be a fair comparison, but it doesn't make much sense to compare the temporal with the eternal. How did the Lord use "wrath"?
John 3:36- "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
This wouldn't make sense if one thinks that the Lord is speaking of the "tribulation wrath" abiding on anyone who "believeth not". The nonbelievers of whom the Lord was speaking (1st century nonbelievers as well as any nonbeliever) were vast. Most would never see the tribulation wrath of the 70th week. The only "wrath" He could be speaking of was their eternal "wrath" in the "lake of fire" after the final judgment. So God has not appointed us for eternal wrath, but for eternal salvation. That is an appropriate comparison, and based on the Lord's seeming usage of the word in John 3:36.
One word on the 24 elders. My study has led me to the realization that the translators of the KJV took some liberties in Revelation 4 and 5. It is assumed that the elders are redeemed saints, but if one assumes that they are, they would also have to explain which "redeemed" the 4 beasts represent, because the beasts also fall before the Lamb in Revelation 5:8, singing the new song. So if one assumes the elders are saints, they must also explain which saints the "beasts" represent. This obviously would be no easy task, and would suggest a stange identity of a "saint". Secondly, and equally important, is that the elders don't refer to themselves as among the "created":
Revelation 4:10,11- "The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Why wouldn't the elders be including themselves among those who are "created"? One could assume that this is referring to everything created in the Genesis creation, but the elders don't include themselves. Imagine this. They've fallen on their faces before the throne, but they fail to include themselves as among the created? I think that would be highly unlikely. For that reason, this appears to be the first evidence that these aren't the redeemed. The second evidence?
Revelation 5:9,10- "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
Interestingly enough, the word "us" (Greek "hemas") in verse 9 is not there in the Alexandrian manuscripts, which are the earliest manuscripts, albeit with fewer copies. One still can't negate this fact. In it, this verse reads "...hast redeemed to God by the blood out of every kindred..." The thing I also found interesting is that even Darby's English Translation seems to use the Alexandrian text, because this is how it reads:
"And they sing a new song, saying Thou are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals; because thou hast been slain:, and hast redeemed to God, by thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,"
What's next is even more interesting. In verse 10, the words "us" and "we" aren't use in either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine majority texts. What does verse 10 actually says in both manuscripts? "And hast made them ("autous") unto our God kings and priests: and they shall reign ("basileusousin") on the earth."
Now, in most interlinear translations and the Blue Letter Bible, it says "us" and "we", respectively. Why? I think it's because of reverse translations. What I mean is that they look at the KJV, and give the Greek translation based on the KJV word which is used. Again, however, if you look at a parallel translation, it appears that "us" and "we" were added into verse 10 in the KJV, as these aren't the correct words in the Alexandrian or Byzantine manuscripts.
So who are the elders? I believe that they must be spiritual created beings which we aren't familiar with. If you go back to the Book of Enoch which I referenced earlier (when the "Lord of the spirits" tells Enoch to "come up hither"), it speaks of the "24 elders" as being before the throne of God, but who's counsel He doesn't really take, as His wisdom is really far above their's anyway. The point is that these don't appear to be saints based on the above. The other curiosity I found is that one some believe that when the Lord says "come up hither" to John, they believe that He's telling the entire church to "come up hither". This is obviously an assumption, but what do we read after the new song?
Revelation 5:11,12- "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."
Okay. "Many angels"? Check. The beasts? Check. The elders? Check. Saints? Nope. If the church has been raptured just prior to this, where is there any mention of the church/bride/body/elect in front of or around the throne? Wouldn't that be very odd? When I studied this, I realized that any mention of the saints in Heaven is in a future tense. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes" (paraphrasing). Why wouldn't He be wiping away every tear from their eyes now if they're glorified saints? One could argue that the "souls under the altar" are saints in Heaven, but they sure don't sound like glorified saints around the throne to me. It sounds more like Abel's blood "crying out" from the ground. We don't even know what "under the altar" means, but what pools around the bottom of an altar? Blood.
Matthew 25:31- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"
The only "group" who the Lord reveals as coming back with Him are His "holy angels" ("hagios aggelos"). No mention of the church/body/bride returning with Him. What did Paul say?
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."
This is clearly referring to the Lord's second coming, as He takes vengeance on His enemies. Again, no mention of the church/body/bride coming with Him...only the angels. Then what does it say? That He "shall come to be glorified in his saints". When does this happen? "...in that day." In the day that the Lord returns to exact vengeance on His enemies, He comes to be glorified in His saints. One might argue that Jude 14, 15 and 1 Thess 3:13 are indications that the church, does, in fact, come with Him, but what do they say?"
1 Thessalonians 3:13- "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints."
The problem with this assumption is that the word for "saints" is the Greek "hagios", which is used in many applications in the NT, including references to the Holy Spirit, Jerusalem, the Lord Himself, and even the angels, as is used in Matthew 25:31 which I quoted above ("hagios aggelos").
Jude 1:14,15- "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
One will notice the remarkable similarity to the noncanonical Book of Enoch:
1 Enoch 1:9- "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
This reference to "holy ones" seems to be pointing toward angels. Why? Look at the verses before it, where the author of the Book of Enoch makes a distinction, as speaks of the "elect":
1 Enoch 1:2-8: "Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, [And appear from His camp] And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heaven. And all shall be smitten with fear, And the Watchers shall quake, And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. And the high mountains shall be shaken, And the high hills shall be made low, And shall melt like wax before the flame. And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder, And all that is upon the earth shall perish, And there shall be a judgment upon all (men). But with the righteous He will make peace, And will protect the elect, And. mercy shall be upon them. And they shall all belong to God, And they shall be prospered, And they shall all be blessed. And He will help them all, And light shall appear unto them, And He will make peace with them."
Revelation 19:14 speaks of "armies" coming with the Lord, but when I read Matthew 25:31 and 2 Thess 1:7-10 (both of which I quoted above), I know for certain that angels are coming with Him, but He didn't speak of the "bride" coming with Him. So could the church be "part" of the armies? Possibly, but the Lord didn't reveal that. Some argue that if the wedding announcement is made in Revelation 19, and the clean, white linen of the saints is their righteousness, then surely the church is coming with Him. I made two notes on this. First of all, there are several descriptions of angels in the NT, being dressed in white linen, and even in Revelation 15:
Revelation 15:6- "And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles."
So one couldn't honestly say that a description of the attire of the saints is exclusive to them, when no desciption of an angel's attire is anything other than "clean" or "white". The second point regarding Revelation 19 is that we don't read of an actual "marriage" of the bride and bridegroom happening prior to the Lord's return. Something so magnificent should surely be described in detail, but we don't find it. At least I couldn't. The first real mention of the adorned bride is in Revelation 21. What else should be considered is that there aren't many men who would take their brides into battle with them. They would, however, go to battle with the enemy in order to rescue their brides.
The points I wanted to make with all of this is that the Lord only speaks of coming with His holy angels. In Matthew 24:31, the Lord says that He sends His angels to "gather together" the elect from the four corners of the sky. Even there, which most pre-tribulationists consider to be the second coming, no mention of the church/bride/body coming with the Lord. Only the Lord saying that His angels will gather together the elect. "Elect" only refers to the church saints when one reads the NT epistles. I wondered why anyone would suddenly want to suggest that the Lord was using a different definition for it in Matthew 24. After all, weren't the apostles themselves very familiar with the context with which the Lord used the word "elect"? Why else would they use it as a reference to the "church saints"? After all, in the opening verses of Matthew 24, we read of His audience. It was His apostles. How do we know this? Because it says that His "disciples" went to Him "privately". These apostles were the future church He was speaking to. He said that "you" will be killed (Matthew 24:9). And how does the Lord reference His "coming"? "Parousia" and "erchomai". They both seem to be a reference to His second coming. When Peter describes the hope of the believer in 1 Peter 1, he speaks of this hope being realized at the Lord's revelation/"apokalypto" at the last time/"eschatos". Why would Peter be writing to the church about our hope being realized at the "last time"?
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, we read Paul write "regarding our gathering together". He then goes on to say that this will not be until after the man of perdition is revealed...not before (verse 3). Consider first of all that the word "gathering together" there is the same Greek word which is used for "gather together" in Matthew 24:31...only a different tense. Secondly, Why would Paul be trying to comfort the church at Thessalonika about the "day of the Lord' if one believes that He just finished elating them in 1 Thessalonians 4 with news that the Lord would "rapture" the church out prior to any tribulation? He wouldn't have had to. They should have been very secure and edified in knowing that Paul assured them that the church would be gone moments before any of this was going to take place, unless, of course, that's not at all what Paul was saying in 1 Thess 4:17.
Keep in mind that the "coming" which Paul is speaking of in 1 Thess 4:15 is the "parousia" return of the Lord:
1 Thessalonians 4:13- "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope."
The first question here is this: Why would Paul need to give them hope about those who were "asleep"? All Paul would have needed to say to settle the matter was "Hey, no worries! They're with the Lord right now! Why are you sorrowful!?!?" Why would Paul need to encourage them by speaking of the resurrection of their bodies? It's a major point. Paul shouldn't have had to lift their collective spirits by speaking of the resurrection of their bodies. The encouragement must have been regarding the resurrection of them body and soul (just as the Lord was resurrected). The Lord wasn't resurrected only body or only spirit, correct? Aren't we to be resurrected in the same way as Him? Aren't we to be "changed" (1 Cor 15)? Paul was comforting them in that they would see their loved ones again, but it would be at His "parousia"; not some "temporary" coming.
1 Thessalonians 4:14- "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
People read this and say "Aha! Evidence that the church is coming with Him!" But again, the Lord only speaks of the angels coming with Him. Secondly, Paul clarifes verse 14 with the subsequent verses:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-18: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
What this does not say is that the Lord and the church "return" to Heaven. Anyone who is intellectually honest will admit to that, because anything else would be adding in to the text. It could easily mean that our coming "with" Him is from the sky to earth (as Matthew 24:30,31 clearly speaks of). So what herald's this "meeting" of 1 Thess 4? "A shout", with "a voice", and "the trump". How does Paul elaborate on this further in 1 Corinthians 15:52? "The last trump". "Last" means "last", does it not? If the "rapture" happens prior to the tribulation, and that happening at the "last trump", there should be no other Heavenly trumps being blown afterwards, yet we read of seven others being blown, beginning in Revelation 8. The deriviation of "last" there is "eschatos", which is literally last in a series of whatever one is speaking of. Obviously, we use it to discuss "eschatology". Again, how can the "eschatos" trump be blown prior to any of the other ones which the angels begin blowing in Revelation 8? It shouldn't. However, if it's blown at the Lord's second coming, it would make perfect sense. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the "last trump" is synonymous with the seventh trumpet. What I am saying is that "last" means "last".
So who is Paul speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15 anyway?
1 Corinthians 15:22-24: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
Paul is speaking of all believers. "All" means "all". He doesn't make any type of differentiation between "church saints" and "tribulation saints". If he had, the church would be divided. That's a modern invention of Western Christianity. "All" means "all". The failure to see the obvious also occurs with Revelation 20, when the "first resurrection" is described. Doesn't "first" mean "first"? When one takes the punctuation away from Revelation 20, it seems that this is not just speaking of martyred saints. Another group is sitting on thrones at the start of Revelation 20.
So, when were we suddenly given liberty to redefine words in Scripture? Certainly, when the Lord spoke to Peter with "agape" and "phileo", words undoubtedly had meaning then. I don't believe, then, that we have authority to redefine them either. "Last" means "last". "All" means "all". "First" means "first". "Last trump"; "shall all ("they that are Christ's") be made alive"; "first resurrection".
Some argue that Revelation 3:10 speaks of the church being removed prior to the "hour of testing". Let me quote the verses:
Revelation 3:10- "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."
The explanation that some give is that "from" is derived from "ek", and speaks of our being removed "from" prior to the tribulaton, but I found that to be only part of the meaning. One must also look at "keep", the derivation of which is from the Greek "tereo". The only other place you'll find these two words used together exactly as they're used together in Revelation 3 is in John 17, in which the Lord is praying to the Father:
John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."
Notice that He's praying very specifically that God the Father not take them out of the world, but rather that He would "keep" them "from" ("tereo autos ek") the evil one. Most will say that this is only regarding the apostles, but one only needs look a few verses along:
John 17:20- "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"
This speaks of the entire lot of the redeemed. What is He keeping us from? His own wrath against nonbelievers. Many will say that God's "wrath" is the entire tribulation, and quote 1 Thessalonians 5 to bolster their claims that we won't be here:
1 Thessalonians 5:9- "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Why would Paul be comparing a temoral, tribulation period of suffering ("wrath") with an eternal destination ("salvation")? He should be comparing an eternal destination with an eternal destination. That would be a fair comparison, but it doesn't make much sense to compare the temporal with the eternal. How did the Lord use "wrath"?
John 3:36- "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
This wouldn't make sense if one thinks that the Lord is speaking of the "tribulation wrath" abiding on anyone who "believeth not". The nonbelievers of whom the Lord was speaking (1st century nonbelievers as well as any nonbeliever) were vast. Most would never see the tribulation wrath of the 70th week. The only "wrath" He could be speaking of was their eternal "wrath" in the "lake of fire" after the final judgment. So God has not appointed us for eternal wrath, but for eternal salvation. That is an appropriate comparison, and based on the Lord's seeming usage of the word in John 3:36.
One word on the 24 elders. My study has led me to the realization that the translators of the KJV took some liberties in Revelation 4 and 5. It is assumed that the elders are redeemed saints, but if one assumes that they are, they would also have to explain which "redeemed" the 4 beasts represent, because the beasts also fall before the Lamb in Revelation 5:8, singing the new song. So if one assumes the elders are saints, they must also explain which saints the "beasts" represent. This obviously would be no easy task, and would suggest a stange identity of a "saint". Secondly, and equally important, is that the elders don't refer to themselves as among the "created":
Revelation 4:10,11- "The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Why wouldn't the elders be including themselves among those who are "created"? One could assume that this is referring to everything created in the Genesis creation, but the elders don't include themselves. Imagine this. They've fallen on their faces before the throne, but they fail to include themselves as among the created? I think that would be highly unlikely. For that reason, this appears to be the first evidence that these aren't the redeemed. The second evidence?
Revelation 5:9,10- "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
Interestingly enough, the word "us" (Greek "hemas") in verse 9 is not there in the Alexandrian manuscripts, which are the earliest manuscripts, albeit with fewer copies. One still can't negate this fact. In it, this verse reads "...hast redeemed to God by the blood out of every kindred..." The thing I also found interesting is that even Darby's English Translation seems to use the Alexandrian text, because this is how it reads:
"And they sing a new song, saying Thou are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals; because thou hast been slain:, and hast redeemed to God, by thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,"
What's next is even more interesting. In verse 10, the words "us" and "we" aren't use in either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine majority texts. What does verse 10 actually says in both manuscripts? "And hast made them ("autous") unto our God kings and priests: and they shall reign ("basileusousin") on the earth."
Now, in most interlinear translations and the Blue Letter Bible, it says "us" and "we", respectively. Why? I think it's because of reverse translations. What I mean is that they look at the KJV, and give the Greek translation based on the KJV word which is used. Again, however, if you look at a parallel translation, it appears that "us" and "we" were added into verse 10 in the KJV, as these aren't the correct words in the Alexandrian or Byzantine manuscripts.
So who are the elders? I believe that they must be spiritual created beings which we aren't familiar with. If you go back to the Book of Enoch which I referenced earlier (when the "Lord of the spirits" tells Enoch to "come up hither"), it speaks of the "24 elders" as being before the throne of God, but who's counsel He doesn't really take, as His wisdom is really far above their's anyway. The point is that these don't appear to be saints based on the above. The other curiosity I found is that one some believe that when the Lord says "come up hither" to John, they believe that He's telling the entire church to "come up hither". This is obviously an assumption, but what do we read after the new song?
Revelation 5:11,12- "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."
Okay. "Many angels"? Check. The beasts? Check. The elders? Check. Saints? Nope. If the church has been raptured just prior to this, where is there any mention of the church/bride/body/elect in front of or around the throne? Wouldn't that be very odd? When I studied this, I realized that any mention of the saints in Heaven is in a future tense. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes" (paraphrasing). Why wouldn't He be wiping away every tear from their eyes now if they're glorified saints? One could argue that the "souls under the altar" are saints in Heaven, but they sure don't sound like glorified saints around the throne to me. It sounds more like Abel's blood "crying out" from the ground. We don't even know what "under the altar" means, but what pools around the bottom of an altar? Blood.
The bottom line is this: the Lord only speaks of returning with His holy angels. He was very unambiguous about it (Matthew 25:31, Matthew 24:30,31). Paul was also unambiguous about it (2 Thess 1:7), and in that context, he was essentially speaking to persecuted believers to "rest with us". There is really no other way to realistically look at those verses from Paul than to say that he was comforting the church in their persecution, by reminding them of the Lord's second coming to rescue them (and take vengeance at that time). After all, Paul believed that it would be in their lifetime. There is no implication in those verses that Paul even insinuates the church leaves prior to His second coming.
The point? The Lord as well as Paul are most definitely UNAMBIGUOUS in describing the Lord's return as being with His angels. Any supposed reference to the church coming "with" Him is ambiguous at best. Shouldn't we go with the unambiguous? Many false teachings are grounded in ambiguous verses.
One other thing I'd bring up is that in 1 Thess 4, it says:
1 Thess 4:17- "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
The reason I bring this up is because the Greek word for "remain" there is "perileipomai". The meaning? "Survive". So, in essence, what Paul is really saying is this:
"Then we which are alive and survive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
If you have 10 apples, and I take 3 of them, do 7 apples "remain", or do 7 apples "survive"? "Survive" has far different implications. It implies making it past the threat of death. What does the church need to "survive"?
There is also the word "meet" (in 1 Thess 4). The Greek word there is "apantesis". Let me point out one usage of it in Acts:
Acts 28:15- "And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage."
Now then, did the brethren travel to meet Paul, and then return with him from whence he came? There is no indication of that. Neither is there any indication that the church is "raptured" away when the Lord comes in the clouds, returning with Him to Heaven. If someone is coming to your house from the airport (for example), if you decide to meet them a couple of miles from your house, after you meet them, are you then going to return with them to the airport, or are you rather going to escort them the rest of the way to your house? If someone is coming to you, and you meet them, in most contexts, you're meeting them in order to come the remaining distance with them. It's not in order for you to return with them from whence they came. The converse would also be true. If you fly to NY, and your friends from Buffalo meet you at the airport, are they going to return with you to your hometown (Florida, for example), or are they escorting you the rest of the way to Buffalo? Do you see the point? This is only one application of "meet", but it's still a salient point.
We're exhorted over and over in Scripture to be prepared. The idea that the church is going to be wisked away to eat caviar and drink champagne while the "tribulation saints" are pummeled is a recent concept which was never taught (that I can find) in the earliest church. Yes, God has unfinished dealings with Israel in terms of OT promises, but I can't find a single place which endorses the idea that the church must "leave" in order for this to take place. I'm not anti-dispensational, but there are clearly some topics which are "overdispensationalized" (if that's a word). To make the pretrib rapure work, one will say that John 14:1,2 is speaking to the church, but Matthew 24 is speaking to Israel. One would then wonder why the Lord goes back and forth, because in Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission is clearly to the church. Would He go back and forth like that? I think it is a dangerous undertaking for one to claim dogmatically that "the Lord is addressing Israel here, the church here, Israel here, the church there, etc.". I'm just quoting the Lord. "Elect" seems to mean all church "elect" based on the usage in the epistles. Nothing more and nothing less. Can anyone find anyplace in Matthew 23-25 where the Lord refers to His coming half-way, collecting us, and returning to Heaven for 7 years?
Truth is not in numbers. Most people take the word of others who they assume to be much more knowledgable, perhaps because they went to seminary. And those seminary students assumed that their professors studied with the best and most knowledgable, and so on and so on. However, one willl find scant evidence that a pre-trib rapture was taught before John Darby and Scofield. Scofield included the teaching in his Bible footnotes, and the evangelical church grabbed ahold of it and never looked back. But what if it's a false teaching? What if it's putting words into the Lord's mouth? Danger. If someone was getting ready to break into your house, would you want to pretend that it wasn't about to happen, or would you rather be prepared? The pretrib rapture is something which is spoonfed rampantly. Now, am I 100% certain that it will unfold as I'm suggesting? No, but what I am saying is that Scripture offers far less support for a pretrib rapture from what I've studied.
Points:
1)The Lord only speaks of returning with His angels. Paul verifies this.
2)"Elect" is always a reference to the church in the epistles. There is no reason to suddenly suppose that it means "tribulation saints" in Matthew 24. The apostles knew what "elect" meant, by their defining it as the church throughout the epistles.
3)The body of Christ is not divided, is it? So how can one suppose that half of the body "leaves" 7 years prior to the other half? (i.e. separating the body into "church saints" and "tribulation saints"). Paul said that "all" will be resurrected at His coming (1 Cor 15:22); not "church saints" versus "tribulation saints". He said "all", and that being at the "last"/eschatos trump". You cannot have other heavenly shofars/trumps being blown AFTER the last/eschatos trump.
4)No Scripture says that the church must be "removed" in order for God to "deal" with National Israel. Revelation 3:10 doesn't just say "ek"; it says "tereo"..."ek". The only other place in which they're used together? John 17:15, in which the Lord prays specifically that believers are not taken out of the world, but rather are instead protected.
In Christ Alone,
John
The point? The Lord as well as Paul are most definitely UNAMBIGUOUS in describing the Lord's return as being with His angels. Any supposed reference to the church coming "with" Him is ambiguous at best. Shouldn't we go with the unambiguous? Many false teachings are grounded in ambiguous verses.
One other thing I'd bring up is that in 1 Thess 4, it says:
1 Thess 4:17- "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
The reason I bring this up is because the Greek word for "remain" there is "perileipomai". The meaning? "Survive". So, in essence, what Paul is really saying is this:
"Then we which are alive and survive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
If you have 10 apples, and I take 3 of them, do 7 apples "remain", or do 7 apples "survive"? "Survive" has far different implications. It implies making it past the threat of death. What does the church need to "survive"?
There is also the word "meet" (in 1 Thess 4). The Greek word there is "apantesis". Let me point out one usage of it in Acts:
Acts 28:15- "And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage."
Now then, did the brethren travel to meet Paul, and then return with him from whence he came? There is no indication of that. Neither is there any indication that the church is "raptured" away when the Lord comes in the clouds, returning with Him to Heaven. If someone is coming to your house from the airport (for example), if you decide to meet them a couple of miles from your house, after you meet them, are you then going to return with them to the airport, or are you rather going to escort them the rest of the way to your house? If someone is coming to you, and you meet them, in most contexts, you're meeting them in order to come the remaining distance with them. It's not in order for you to return with them from whence they came. The converse would also be true. If you fly to NY, and your friends from Buffalo meet you at the airport, are they going to return with you to your hometown (Florida, for example), or are they escorting you the rest of the way to Buffalo? Do you see the point? This is only one application of "meet", but it's still a salient point.
We're exhorted over and over in Scripture to be prepared. The idea that the church is going to be wisked away to eat caviar and drink champagne while the "tribulation saints" are pummeled is a recent concept which was never taught (that I can find) in the earliest church. Yes, God has unfinished dealings with Israel in terms of OT promises, but I can't find a single place which endorses the idea that the church must "leave" in order for this to take place. I'm not anti-dispensational, but there are clearly some topics which are "overdispensationalized" (if that's a word). To make the pretrib rapure work, one will say that John 14:1,2 is speaking to the church, but Matthew 24 is speaking to Israel. One would then wonder why the Lord goes back and forth, because in Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission is clearly to the church. Would He go back and forth like that? I think it is a dangerous undertaking for one to claim dogmatically that "the Lord is addressing Israel here, the church here, Israel here, the church there, etc.". I'm just quoting the Lord. "Elect" seems to mean all church "elect" based on the usage in the epistles. Nothing more and nothing less. Can anyone find anyplace in Matthew 23-25 where the Lord refers to His coming half-way, collecting us, and returning to Heaven for 7 years?
Truth is not in numbers. Most people take the word of others who they assume to be much more knowledgable, perhaps because they went to seminary. And those seminary students assumed that their professors studied with the best and most knowledgable, and so on and so on. However, one willl find scant evidence that a pre-trib rapture was taught before John Darby and Scofield. Scofield included the teaching in his Bible footnotes, and the evangelical church grabbed ahold of it and never looked back. But what if it's a false teaching? What if it's putting words into the Lord's mouth? Danger. If someone was getting ready to break into your house, would you want to pretend that it wasn't about to happen, or would you rather be prepared? The pretrib rapture is something which is spoonfed rampantly. Now, am I 100% certain that it will unfold as I'm suggesting? No, but what I am saying is that Scripture offers far less support for a pretrib rapture from what I've studied.
Points:
1)The Lord only speaks of returning with His angels. Paul verifies this.
2)"Elect" is always a reference to the church in the epistles. There is no reason to suddenly suppose that it means "tribulation saints" in Matthew 24. The apostles knew what "elect" meant, by their defining it as the church throughout the epistles.
3)The body of Christ is not divided, is it? So how can one suppose that half of the body "leaves" 7 years prior to the other half? (i.e. separating the body into "church saints" and "tribulation saints"). Paul said that "all" will be resurrected at His coming (1 Cor 15:22); not "church saints" versus "tribulation saints". He said "all", and that being at the "last"/eschatos trump". You cannot have other heavenly shofars/trumps being blown AFTER the last/eschatos trump.
4)No Scripture says that the church must be "removed" in order for God to "deal" with National Israel. Revelation 3:10 doesn't just say "ek"; it says "tereo"..."ek". The only other place in which they're used together? John 17:15, in which the Lord prays specifically that believers are not taken out of the world, but rather are instead protected.
In Christ Alone,
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)