A Rapture? Actually, There's Three

What I'm about to share with you I'd wager you've never heard anywhere else before. Don't let that scare you, though you may suspect I'm a Gentile short of the full number before it's over.

Before we go any further, let's define an important term: rapture. The word itself is generally considered to be a non-biblical term, but that is not quite true. It is a fair translation of the Koine, harpazó, found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, as the dictionary clearly demonstrates. For the sake of accuracy, let me define rapture in this way: an event in which God translates the body of a believer not only from its earthly location to a heavenly one, but also, and more importantly, transforms it from its earthly form to its eternal one. Both the living and the dead are included, and the fullest treatment of the circumstance is found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57.

The most important consideration, quite apart from all that, is whether or not the term does justice to biblical thought, and that it does quite well!

If you've been a Christian for a minimum of 5 minutes, you've probably been assaulted by the arguments as to the timing of this event. Although there are those who would argue against the existence of the event at all, that perspective is so out of harmony with scripture, it's not worth the words it would take to refute it. That aside, there are pre-, mid-, and post-tribulationists who subscribe to the event but differ as to its timing. There are even so-called pan-tribulationists, cheeky monkeys who say they could care less, figuring it will all pan out in the end.

What I can say in regard to this question, that may be unique and is definitely outre, is that they're all right! 

Haven't I said in prior articles that the Gentile church was raptured out at the beginning of the 70th week? Yes, but let me say here that each of the viewpoints (pre, mid and post) can cite solid scriptural references to back up their viewpoints. For each view, those that hold the others can shoot holes in their arguments. Why? They are, in fact, all right, they just don't realize it. What the Bible actually teaches is that the rapture has a pre-, mid-, and post-tribulational component. What!?! Yup, all three pre-millenial rapture theories are correct, but not exclusively so, whereas post- and a-millenialism are out to lunch.

I lay out the pretribulational rapture of the Gentile church in another post, so let me lay out the rest for you. 

In Revelation 7 we are introduced to 144,000 Jews who believed in Christ at the beginning of Daniel's 70th week. They are sealed and protected from the wrathful events falling upon earth at that time for three and a half years. Their time on earth during the 70th week runs concurrently with the two prophetic witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11. Those witnesses are killed at the midpoint of the Tribulation and left unburied on the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days. At that point, God calls for them from his abode and they rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. 

That experience for those two witnesses most certainly fits the definition of Rapture. As it so happens, the next mention of the 144,000 is in Revelation 14, but, quite noticeably, their location then can no longer be said to be clearly on earth. They're with the Lamb, singing a special song before the throne and the elders. How did they get there? They were raptured, like any other humans who get there, along with the two witnesses. And smack dab in the middle of Daniel's  70th week!

What about the post- component?

That's found in Revelation 20, where we discover that those (they will be Jews) who were executed in the last three and a half years of the 70th week, will be raised from the dead and join the ranks of those ruling and reigning with Christ. Rather than buy into THE lie and take the mark of the beast, they stayed true to Christ and paid the price with their lives. They will find the same reward as all who have done similar before them. And, it meets the definition of Rapture!

There you have it. The completion of the first resurrection-- a rapture for sure, but in three distinct, biblically attested phases.

The Rapture: The Secret's Out

The idea of a "secret" gathering of the Gentile church in the air to meet Christ, while the world descends into tribulation, is a difficult one for many. The concept is relatively new to the church, first proposed, as near as I can tell, in 1812 and not popularized until about 1830 (by Irving and Darby). My own hermeneutical guidepost is that what someone has said or not said about the Word, regardless of how long ago they lived and wrote, is not really the issue. Whether or not the Word itself actually bears out the interpretation behind the teaching is what matters.

So, does the Bible actually bear out this teaching of a pre-tribulational Rapture? Yes, resoundingly, yes!

Let me offer you an annotated list of scriptural citations which support the concept:

1) Revelation 7: note that the 144,000 are described in earthly terms, whereas the Gentile saints are described in heavenly ones; 

2) Matthew 24:32-51: note that despite referencing the signs of the end, Jesus teaches the sudden, unexpected taking away of those that were ready;

3) Luke 21:36: note that the "escape out from all these things" is associated with standing before the Son of man;

4) 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5: note that the Thessalonians had thought they missed it all, not only the gathering of the saints to Christ, but the coming of our Lord. The reference only makes sense if they were expecting a "secret rapture." Paul reassures them by reiterating that the coming will not be secret, even though the gathering is; 

5) Revelation 3:7-13: note that there is a Jewish/Gentile divergence referenced and that the church in Philadelphia was promised to be kept out from the hour (a short period) of trial coming upon the whole earth; 

6) Luke 17:26-36: Note that the rescue in the ark was followed by wrath on the earth, which makes perfect sense in light of 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 

7) Revelation 12:1-6: this will actually take some words to develop, so please read on.

Perhaps no chapter of scripture is more helpful eschatologically than Revelation 12. Once one properly understands the symbols, the end-time scenario clarifies and the timing of end-time events settles into place. The imagery of the woman clearly hearkens back to Joseph's dream, the figure is obviously Jewish. That she was pregnant brings into focus two thoughts:

1) She would give birth to something like her, and 

2) While in the womb that something was expected but hidden. If one sees the woman as a corporate symbol (like the nation of Israel), rather than an individual (like Mary), then the infant must taken the same way.

Interpreting Revelation 12

The woman is the messianic Jewish community, the baby in her womb is the Gentile church. The church is in the womb because it was hidden from sight from the former prophets, secreted in between Daniel's 69th and 70th week (despite the Jews being prophesied as having an effect on all nations). Though hidden, it grows and develops until it has attained its full gestation (Romans 11:25, full number), at which point, its time in utero is complete and the baby is born. 

Immediately, the child is raptured (Koine: harpazo) into the heavenlies. We should recall at this point that the church is the body of Christ and that we will rule and reign with him. The Jewish mother is left, protected on earth for three and a half years. That equates symbolically quite well with the description of the 144,000. Her other offspring, who become subject to the animosity of the dragon, are the Jews who will be coming to Christ as a result of the testimony of 144,000 and the two witnesses (but that's for another article).

So, the Bible does teach a sudden and escaping translation of the Gentile church to heaven at the close of the Age of the Gentiles and the beginning of the 70th Week of Daniel. Though often pejoratively referred to as the Secret Rapture, all I can say is that the secret's out!

The Prophetic Hermeneutic

What is the most important prophecy in the scriptures?

For as many students of the Word as there are, there will be that many answers to such a question. Genesis 3:15 or Isaiah 53 would definitely have to be considered as possible contenders, but I think there is another that is more practical in relating the present as we experience it to prophecy in the Bible. It may be a bit obscure, but Amos 3:7 turns out to be eminently practical in relating biblical predictions about what would happen to what actually is happening.

It's a prophecy about prophecy. In fact, Amos 3:7 is a hermeneutical powerhouse!

I take this passage to mean that if something will occur that is significant to God's redemptive plans for the human race, God will reveal those events to his prophets prior to their happening. Occurrences which have significance to God's plan are not going to pass by without mention, without notice from him to the faithful. The practical aspect of this reality is that when significant events happen to Israel or in the world which Christ is in the midst shepherding toward an end, those events will be found to have been foretold by one of God's writing prophets. 

Such a supposition helps unfold our understanding of redemption history during the Church Age. For instance, events like the disintegration of the Pax Romana with its long-term impact on European, and therefore church development; or the pandemic of Bubonic plague in the 1340's with its worldwide jolt to population and culture; or the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, beyond doubt, had effecst on redemption history. Therefore, we should anticipate such events to be foretold by prophecy in the Bible.

If this is so, one has to wonder where in the Bible might the earth-shattering events that have befallen mankind during the Church Age be prophesied. I think the most likely place to look is in the prophecies found in the New Testament. The very last prophetic revelation, the Apocalypse, is generally supposed to have been inspired in 95 CE. It makes "Amos 3:7 sense" that the Lord would show his servants, the New Testament Apostles, those plan-of-redemption affecting events that would happen during the Church Age.

What doesn't make sense is thinking that God would have only commented about the last 7 years of time in these prophecies and remained quiet regarding all those earth-shattering events that have happened in the mean time.

If we see Amos 3:7 as a prophetic hermeneutic, it allows us to interpret New Testament prophecy in a broader light than has been generally accepted. Doing so leads us to the discovery that God has not left us in the darkness concerning what's been going on these last 2000 years. But let me add a couple of corollaries:

1) if the prophesied event occurred within the time frame during which biblical writing was inspired, its fulfillment will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period; and 

2) if a prophecy interprets the past (as it certainly does in parts of the Revelation) it's fulfillment in the past will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period.

These principles of interpretation may not be found in any standard, evangelical approach to hermeneutics, but then again, would I be writing this if those techniques actually produced coherent, internally consistent expositions, that successfully interpreted eschatological prophecy!

These principles are essential in properly interpreting the Seven Seals as well as the Eight Kings of chapter 17. If one is left scratching his or her head, trying to understand why there wasn't a word from God when a quarter of the earth's population was killed within a few short years (the Black Death), or why a frivolous book like Esther was ever recorded in scriptures, he or she should remember this hermeneutic. The Holy Spirit inspired the recording of things he did for reasons, though sometimes those reasons don't become apparent until generations afterward.

Hopefully, they'll be apparent to you as we continue...

Be Like Jesus

Distractions are some of our greatest enemies. They do not confront us with malice frontally, their blows, if they land at all, are only glancing. They don’t have to be dangerous or even lethal-- a butterfly on the windshield wiper can be just as distracting to our drive as a bee in the car. Like the old saw which says that a man may be the head of the family, but the wife is the neck, so distractions seek to turn our attention from where we were going.

The Bible warns us about distractions. Most of them are not intrinsically evil, but some of them are. A family will be a distraction, it's unavoidable, and not evil in the least (quite the opposite in fact). An unrelenting drive for "success" and status is distracting, particularly from trying to achieve our point in being here, and is evil at the core. Oddly, benign or evil distractions can stop ministry in its tracks.

Multiple choice exams, in order to add a degree of difficulty, often instruct their takers to choose, not the answer, but the best answer. A response can be wrong, not because it isn't true, but because it isn't full. When tolerances are high, quality control is a cinch: when the fit is tight, we have to be more choosy. I wonder how much of what we teach and practice in the church settles for something in the ballpark, but actually misses being in the game? The church at Ephesus certainly has some lessons to teach us in this regard.

Even the litany of discussions about the church seems somewhat distracting to me. So many are writing and reading about, mostly, what has already been said by someone at some time. Mention anything to a brother or sister today and you're likely to hear, "have you read so and so's book/article/blog about ..." So much information, so many concerns, too many choices, urgencies everywhere, the flesh in the midst of it all, excuses overflowing. So much effort in planning and prospecting and trying to get ahead.

Can it be that hard to just be like Jesus? 

Maybe it's time to just do that!

The Audience of Worship

Who is the intended audience of the "worship" segments of congregational meetings?

If the answer is the visitor or newcomer, those segments are designed, like everything else in such churches, to appeal to the next one in the door. That one must be prospected, projected and then specifically, strategically prepared for and enticed. It's a marketing thing, often a niche marketing thing, but is it a worship thing?

If the answer is the folk sitting in the congregation, those segments are designed, often very responsively, to retain those returning through the door. The wants, wishes, even grumbling, of those will guide, forestall or derail any attempt to change the status quo. It's an appeasing, people-pleasing thing, but is it a worship thing?

If the answer is people, regardless of the considerations above, the goal of those fronting "worship" time will be to thrill, or at least to satisfy, the cash paying audience in the seats. The likelihood is that those leaders will be inordinately attended to by both the audience and the church "promoters" who enlist them, everyone together "stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular song." It's a pop concert or stage show thing, but is it worship?

An innocent misstep a sincere worship leader can make is tugboating-- attempting to lead the folk into the port of "presence." However, playing David to the congregation's Saul is not a New Testament paradigm. The folk in the seats are not faithless fakes who have no God inside them and so have to be pushed from without. They are a living temple, a habitation of the Holy Spirit. The worship team doesn't have to "take them into the throne room," they're already there! 

The issue in corporate worship is the congregation's recognition and acknowledgement of God with them, in them, and their appropriate response to him. With all of this in mind, then, who is the audience of worship?

None other than God himself, and God and no one else. When someone says, "worship was great today!" he or she is utterly deluded if they had the worship team's performance in mind. However, if they had the congregation's participation and God's manifest presence in mind, they'd be keenly insightful. When worship is truly worship, the church is the orchestra, the Spirit is the maestro, and God is the audience.

The Top 10 Church Fallacies

Perhaps a little thought exercise might be fun...

I offer you my top ten list of fallacies adopted by the modern church. They are in no particular order, and done a month from now, the list would most likely be a bit different. Each item is followed by my commentary on the subject. Agree, disagree, regardless, take a moment and comment on any or all of them. If, however, you find fault with any of them, please tell me why, scripturally. 

Bon voyage!

1. Churches should decide things by voting on them

Democracy, although a blessing in human government, is not so much as hinted at in the NT for governing the church. It is an invention of western civilization rather than the scriptures. It has seeped into the church by osmosis, rather than arising from the inspired instruction of God for his church.

2. God has commanded the church to tithe

This is a relatively recent invention, developed out of a misappropriation of the OT law. Christians not only don't have to, they should not do so, if doing so is an attempt to gain status before or blessing from God (i.e. legalism). If one tithes, he or she should not think that it merits a blessing from God, and especially not if it's treated as if it's the contracted response to consideration paid. 

3. Modern pastors get paid too much

The Bible says that elders, especially those that labor in the word, are worthy of double honor. The context is remuneration. If you work full time, take whatever you make, multiply it by two, and that is easily what your pastor is worth. A good pastor is worth his weight in gold! Now, I'm not saying that is what pastors should get paid, but certainly, 99% of churches have no reason at all to complain about what their pastors do get paid.

4. Church growth should be the first concern of church leaders

Biblically, church growth is not in the purview of church leaders, nor church members for that matter. Leaders sow the word, and water it, but God alone is responsible for the increase. A focus on church growth can only result in the dethroning of God and the subsequent substitution of human methodology in place of the work of the Spirit. If we control it, as we must if it is ours to determine, than it also follows that it must be generated from our creativity and determination. One can expand the clientele of a supermarket through good marketing, it doesn't follow that we can or should do the same for our church.

5. Evangelism requires Christians to act as unbelievers do

I have to admit, this one bugs me. Jesus didn't collect taxes, get drunk, or use the services of prostitutes. He didn't dress like them nor act like them. He did hang out with them, minister to them, and win them. He changed them, they didn't change him. How is cussing, drinking, watching questionable entertainment, or gutting the gospel following Christ's example? I don't think Paul's statements about cross-cultural evangelism can be taken to mean that we should either.

6. Pastors chief role as leaders is vision casting

Where to begin with this? The Bible would be the wrong answer. This is out of the business world pure and simple-- Peter Drucker rather than Simon Peter. The word pastor literally means "a feeder of sheep', a bishop is literally "one who watches over", and an elder is an aged one. The only thing the Bible suggests that leaders cast is... feed.

7. Christians in every generation need to apply their creativity to reinvent the church

The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We never get to scrap it and start anew, for no other foundation can be laid than what has already been laid. We must, instead, be careful how we build upon that which was built before. The church is his and the faith has been delivered once for all time. We had better do what we do out of the grace of God given us, rather than out of the manipulative fads of the moment.

8. The church is meant to transform society and cure its ills

Though we are salt and light, I see no promise that we will change the world. Just the opposite in fact: the poor will always be with us, evil will wax worse and worse, and evil men will proceed to their doom. The ship is going down, all we can do is to get as many as we can into eternity's lifeboats before it goes down.

9. It is acceptable for believers to treat other believers in error or sin with disdain

All I have to say is Galatians 6:1-2 and 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

10. The Republican Party is the only acceptable political party for American Christians

Having said all that I have above, is there really anything more necessary to say about this?

Worship: Arson or Spontaneous Combustion

Worship.

The source of conflict in the modern church disproportional to the amount inspired by the Holy Spirit about it in the New Testament.

Among the more charismatic of us, it can take on a mystical, superstitious, or even shamanistic flavor if it's seen as the means of conjuring up the presence of God. Among the less charismatic, it is just part of the package of techniques employed to appeal to this generation of potential pew sitters. In way too many churches it is nothing more than a crowd-warming preliminary to the supposedly more important art of the preacher. In the more liturgical among us it has no separate identity at all, everything that happens is part of the "worship service."

What do we actually know from scripture about the practice of worship in the church? We know Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn after the Lord's supper. We know that songs in tongues and in understood languages were part of the corporate worship at Corinth and, presumably, elsewhere. We know worship was participative, consisting of individual and corporate expression simultaneously. 

And... [insert drum roll] we know that there was no recognized gift of worship leading. We do have that wonderful instance where the curtain to the heavenlies is pulled back to reveal that loud, boisterous worship is part of the milieu of the throne room of God. Beyond all this, we really know very little, but that's not nothing. Truth be told, our practices of contemporary worship are more informed by the Old Testament and our present culture than they are by the New Testament.

Just for the sake of clarity, let me propose a definition of worship:

Worship is those acts, both inward and outward, that focus attention specifically on God and thereby distill within the soul an awareness of his presence and that arouse reverence and adoration toward him and elicit surrender to him.

If we combine that definition with the New Testament understanding of what it means to be born again, it seems to me that worship teams (bands, leaders, choirs, combos, or whatever) should never be considered the sources, igniters or elicitors of worship. We already bear the presence of God within us, so why would we need to be "inspired" to experience it? If someone requires such an inspiration, it would raise questions regarding whether or not they were truly born again!

If we are depending on the skill of a worship leader to get us into the "presence of the Lord," worship is not what's happening-- emotional manipulation is.

What happens in worship gatherings today often resembles rock concerts and stage shows more than it does the throne room of God. It is a cheer-led spectacle of star power, a clamor of flesh and self-indulgence. But please, don't take this as a critique on the type or style of music being used. That, really, is inconsequential.

At best, worship leaders are nothing more than accompanists, a utilitarian backdrop to what's happening among the folk, between the folk and God. Therein lies the problem with much of what is supposedly worship today-- is something happening between the folk and God? We can't make people know God, love him, or express true worship to him. It has to come from them because of what God has done in them. Choreographing a Kumbaya moment is for summer camp, not the church of Jesus Christ!

It seems to me, worship ought to be more like spontaneous combustion than arson. Sadly, there's getting to be fewer and fewer who understand the difference.

What Is the Point of Church?

In our day, the nominal are fleeing church as fast as they can and many of the presumedly genuine don't think "organized" churches are all that necessary. It is true that everything in the kingdom of God is supposed to revolve around love, yet organized religion doesn't come close to living out such a mantra. Furthermore, all the pedantic fuss and vitriolic disputation about esoteric doctrines doesn't make the institution any more appealing. So what's the point of church which seems so repelling anyway?

It cannot be denied that those things that are most important to God in reference to life in the Church do issue from love. Case in point:

1) Obedience toward Christ arises out of love. We cannot force ourselves to obey Christ out of sheer will or intellect. It takes love. If one loves Christ, obedience follows naturally. It is that one who loves Christ and obeys him for whom the love of God will be efficacious in turn.

2) Moving in the Spirit with great faith, and even an awesome testimony of power, only has point and purpose if it arises out of love. Seemingly spiritual giants are just bugs in the grass without love. Those things that are here only for a season, but are bound to pass away cannot possibly carry any weight at the threshold of eternity, but love will.

3) Personal friendship with God arises out of love. Since God is love, to get along with him one must adopt love too. Not like a mask, but as a transforming reality of the heart. When we start where we are and procceed in the love that God has shed abroad in our hearts, his love is brought to fullness within us. We can never get along with God and not be loving, like him.

Obviously, the point of church is love. So where is the place of doctrine and ritual in all this?

At the end of time, it won't really matter, nor will anyone care about whether or not one was Arminian or Calvinist; dispensational or covenantal; pre-, post- or a- millennial; charismatic or cessationist. What will matter is not the precision of the doctrine that was held, but the reality of the love which was practiced. Don't get me wrong, doctrine is important, it's just not more important than practicing love, not even close.

As for ritual, there's only two that Christ taught the church to follow: believer's baptism and the Lord's Supper. In neither case are these rites efficacious at appropriating grace merely because they were practiced. Both are just standardized expressions of a state of faith in the heart of the individual participating. We are baptized because we've come to believe in Christ, and we memorialize his passion through a symbolic meal because we believe the death, burial and resurrection of Christ has saved us from sin and death.

What faith has received in fullness upon its existence cannot be regulated thereafter by the practice of ritual. Sacrament, truly, has no place in the church. 

Church, ultimately, is not about rites, or religious duty, or doctrine but about relationships between brothers and sisters. Love, not doctrine or ritual, drives that. If one goes through life attending church, committed to the group but never connecting to people, one errs and misses the matter of utmost importance. If one studies the Bible and meticulously knows church doctrine, but does not know his brethren he has missed the most significant doctrinal point.

Church is the place where we learn to love one another and add others to the circle of love. The central reality of any church should be love and the way it connects believer to believer. If we strive for all else and miss that, we will have missed everything. If we lay anything on the line, if we sacrifice anything near and dear, let it be to further the love we have one for another. That, and really nothing else, is actually the point of church.

Rock Gardens & Weed Beds

Many folks think that there is something to recommend in being middle-of-the-road in perspective and attitude, and something bad about being extreme in the same. I can understand why in many situations that may be a wise course, but it's anything but wise when it comes to Christianity. In following Christ, the milquetoast middle is nothing but a muddle. And dangerous at that!

Offered for your consideration: the parable of the sower. The extremes were clear in their result whether for good or bad. The mucky middle, on the other hand, had the look, even the promise of fruitfulness, but not the reality. Why did the middle fail? Because only by selling out, getting extreme in focus, can we see achieved what was intended to be achieved by the scattering of the gospel seed in our lives. Only a single-minded vision of submitting to what Christ in us is attempting to grow can make our lives truly fruitful in God.

And as God sees life, fruitfulness is what counts. For the seed which is the Word to get anything done in us that He came to do, there has to be singularity in the soil of our hearts. Our soil must be set apart, exclusively, for the growth and fruitfulness of that one seed. It must yield no room, nor nutrient, nor anything else that anything else would need to grow. It must not yield to anything that would retard the growth of that one seed.

If our soil is a mixed bag, chunky with rocks, or infested with other kinds of seed, our appearance may seem fine for a time, but over time, our fruitlessness will reveal the unfortunate truth about our hearts. Like any farmer planting his fields with a crop, when God plants seed in us, he expects that kind of fruit out of us. God farms by the Christ-in-Christ-out method (CICO). When rocks and weeds compete for the soil with that seed, the seed's growth is stunted and it never comes to fruit.

God wants a harvest for what he's sown into our lives. How is it that we think we can we offer him rock gardens and weed beds instead? Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. When God looks for fruit, fruit better be there, or there's going to be a reckoning. One fig would have done it for Jesus... at least some fruit will do it for us.