The Rapture scenario continues to elude me

Just a quick report. I'm struggling through Hal Lindsey's book of 1999, Vanished, which was recommended to me as a help to resolve my ongoing inability to settle the questions involving the idea of a premillennial Rapture. Well, it doesn't resolve it. Yet. But I am having a very hard time reading it. Something about the way it is organized makes it hard for me to follow, and he spends too much time, for my purposes anyway, answering other interpretive schemes that don't persuade me at all anyway -- Dominionism and Reconstructionism for instance. For some time I've found the premillennial interpretation to be the best of the field at elucidating the scripture, just not entirely convincing to me yet.

I'm MOSTLY convinced that scripture does describe the return of Jesus in two different sets of terms such that the idea of the Rapture of the Church's occurring separately from His return to earth as conquering king is a reasonable interpretation. That is not completely resolved for me either because I'm not entirely sure which references apply to which event, and there's one that's taken to apply to the Rapture that has the Lord appearing with a "shout" that hardly sounds like a quiet snatching-away of His people. BUT overall the two-stage return of Christ is plausible. And there is precedent for such a division into two in the fact that Jesus' first advent only fulfilled the Suffering Servant prophecies of the Old Testament, leaving the prophecies of his return as triumphant warrior king for the Second Coming, which wasn't clearly understood until after His resxurrection and ascension. So as we approach the last of the last days it seems perfectly reasonable that a more precise outline of His return should also begin to appear, and also to expect that it too won't be fully understood until it is upon us or even later.

Unfortunately it's hard to point to exactly what it is that gives me the most trouble with Lindsey's presentation. Cobra helicopters are the least of the problem though. There is one place Lindsey makes himself utterly untrustworthy it seems to me, when he brings up Jesus' likening the kingdom of heaven to leaven gradually worked throughout a lump. Lindsey simply insists that scripture ONLY uses "leaven" to refer to sin and evil, without explaining how on earth he can treat its use to represent "the kingdom of heaven" in the same way. The Dominionists no doubt misuse that passage to support their cause but that's no excuse to try to make it refer to something else it obviously doesn't refer to. That lost me completely and shakes my faith in Lindsey's thinking. But it's a minor point in the overall interpretive scheme.

One thing I've always had a problem with concerning Rapture scenarios that put a great emphasis on the completion of God's dealings with Israel, is how to view the covenant of the land God gave to Abraham. Certainly it was given without condition and forever, but there is also the passage in Hebrews where we are told that Abraham was not looking to an earthly land but to an eternal abode -- unless I've utterly misunderstood that passage.

Hebrews 11:8-16: By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I see present-day Israel on the earthly land and can't help but attribute that to God's own purposes -- what other option is there? But does that make that earthly land the fulfillment of the covenant promise? Aren't Christians also "heirs of Abraham" and as such also heirs of that unconditional covenant, and doesn't that put the covenant on a New Testament footing that changes how we are to understand it? We are to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, that's our primary directive for Biblical exegesis.

Yet it's not impossible to my mind that some -- a few -- of the promises to the Jews may not be completely fulfilled in the New Covenant and remain to be fulfilled -- or that there is a double fulfillment in the Church and earthly Israel both. Of course I can't go with any interpretation that seems to imply that the Jews are not to be saved by the same means as all the rest of us, through the death of Christ. Lindsey doesn't seem to make that error but he's a tad ambiguous on that point, and others of his basic persuasion do make that error.

One thing I am very sure of is that there remains a "week" or seven years left over from Daniel's prophecy of the time required to completely fulfill God's plan for Israel, the "seventieth week of Daniel" left after the first 69 were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ. I'm just not completely sure how to understand its purpose. Apparently it includes, or is synonymous with, the Day of the Lord, the time of the Antichrist, a time of unprecedented evil on the earth, also known as the Great Tribulation, during which time the vast majority of believers will be martyred. This idea of the fulfillment of God's plan for israel is hardly a happy one.

This period is also foreshadowed in Isaiah 61, 1 and 2, the first verse of which Jesus read in the synagogue to announce His Messiahship, leaving out the second verse which refers to the Day of the Lord, now clearly to be connected with His second coming:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

It appears that it isn't primarily the Rapture itself that's the problem for me, it's the whole scenario in which the Rapture occurs, and especially what supposedly happens AFTER the Rapture. Of course a different understanding of all that could change my acceptance of the timing of the Rapture itself too.

But overall I'm still where I was when I began this book by Lindsey. Well, I'll keep reading and perhaps reread the book, since I don't feel I'm getting anything very clear out of it yet.

Mullings on the Rapture

I'm still not completely convinced that there is to be a two-stage Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the first stage being a rapture of the church before some of the end times events -- whether before the great tribulation or in the middle of it or whatever.

So far I have at least become convinced that much of the reasoning AROUND the Rapture claims IS true, however. That is, I do believe there is yet to come a seven-year period that will fulfill the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. I'm pretty convinced that in the middle of that "week" there will be the appearance of something called the "abomination of desolation" and that the great tribulation will immediately follow that. I believe also that there will be a restored temple in Jerusalem in which this event will occur. So I reject most of the thinking that comes from the ANTI-Rapturists.

But none of this proves whether there is to be a Rapture previous to any of these things. These things could all be true, as I MOSTLY believe they are, and the Rapture occur when Jesus returns for the final time.

It could occur that way, but there are still some scriptural indications that a pre-trib Rapture -- or pre-wrath Rapture, or pre-Second Coming Rapture --- COULD occur. I'm not completely convinced one way or the other yet.

Logical (not scriptural) considerations are:

FOR THE RAPTURE: The full flowering of evil on earth, which is what the last days are going to be all about, would be interfered with by the presence of God's people who pray against it and preach against it. This evil will certainly center on the Antichrist, and in all kinds of signs and wonders, including very likely "alien" (demonic) UFO "visitors" to the planet. Demons manifesting, supernatural powers being exhibited.

AGAINST THE RAPTURE: On the other hand, there would be no hope at all for people to be saved during such a period of time if there WEREN'T God's people around to preach to them and show the true nature of all the evil going on and lead them to Christ, people of true and deep faith who trust in God's providence and protection against the greatest manifestation of evil and eventually tremendous suffering ever seen on earth.

This could be an argument for a "mid-trib" Rapture scenario, the first half of the 70th week being a time of manifested signs and wonders against which God's people stand and millions are saved, and the last half being the outpouring of God's wrath, before which the Rapture comes and removes all believers. COULD be. I'm just mulling things.

UFOs again and a Rapture Disinformation Campaign?

Took note of this remark in an article by Heidi Swander for Jan Markell's Olive Tree Views:

Brannon Howse, sitting in for Jan on our Understanding the Times radio broadcast this past Saturday (Oct. 2, 2010), equated the official and increased recognition of UFOs with "religious syncretism" -- the coalescing of the one-world religion by bringing many divergent and seemingly incompatible religions together. Brannon asked his guest, Gary Bates, author of the book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, if he saw the UFO phenomenon as laying the foundation for the antichrist. "I could not see a better explanation. Because, in fact, most of the UFO writings -- and particularly the writings that claim to have been channeled to receivers here on the Earth -- do have an eschatology, and it seems to strongly, actually, follow the idea that people are going to be whisked away off the Earth into space ships. That sounds like the Rapture . . ." which we know is necessary in order for the antichrist to make his entrance.

Certainly looks like there is likely to be a big disinformation campaign if the Rapture does occur, to explain away the sudden absence of Christians in occultic terms. Well, you know, Christians are the problem, the "bigots" -- "ignorant" / "unevolved" / "unenlightened" -- who only interfere with the grand project of producing an "evolved" or "enlightened" population under the leadership of Ascended Masters or Ancient Astronauts or whatever pompous hooha they come up with -- so let me guess, their story will be how they kindly removed us impediments to progress to some place where we can evolve in a pleasant environment without disturbing the higher things on earth.

Only those who grasp the Christian understanding will know what really happened.

I also tuned into the broadcast on Jan Markell's Understanding the Times (Oct. 2, 2010) , with substitute host Brannon Howse, covering UFOs among other related topics.

Scott Johnson's talks for 10-3-10 also get into UFOs, and the possibility that there will soon be a release of information from world leaders that's been suppressed for decades affirming the reality of UFOs. Also Google UFO Disclosure.

=====================
Just had this question pop into my mind: If there is to be a catching-away of Christian believers before the events of the last days -- the 70th week of Daniel or the last 3-1/2 years or whatever it turns out to be -- what about children who are not old enough to profess Christ? I have to assume that the children of believing parents would be raptured, but would the grandchildren of believing grandparents be raptured although the parents are not (yet) believers for instance?

I don't agree with either system completely

I'm not sure that Missler and Riddlebarger can be said to represent two opposing theological systems exactly enough to identify them as representative of those systems, but as I've been listening to their end times talks I've taken sides with one or the other of them on particular points and can sort it out that way at least:

I agree with Riddlebarger / the Reformed / the Amillennialists on the general point that there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ. The Church IS both Jew and Gentile, therefore it does not "replace" Israel, it is an expansion of the people of God to include believing Gentiles with believing Jews. There was a massive influx of Gentiles into the Church in the first centuries on down to the present, and according to scripture there is yet a time coming, very soon it seems to some of us, when God's focus will shift and there will be a massive influx of Jews into the Church. Riddlebarger sees it this way and so do many on the other side of the theological divide.

To deny that physical earthly Israel must have a part in this drama, as the Reformed / Amillennialists do, seems completely blind to me. Their restoration to the land and their preservation there over the last century are marked by miraculous events. This has to be God's work even though the people of Israel do not acknowledge Him. This has to be fulfilled prophecy. And there must be more to come.

On the other hand, those who see a restored Israel as a return to Old Testament religion, as the final form to persist after Christ returns, have gone too far in this direction. Scripture does suggest that the temple will be restored, so that there will be at least an interim return to OT practices, but the revelation of the Antichrist in that temple is to wake up the Jews and bring them to Christ, and the OT practices which are clearly identified in the NT as the types and shadows of Christ will be finally done away.

I believe Paul's "Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16 refers to all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Missler says this is literal Israel, believing Israel, and does not include the Church. I disagree with Missler. Gentile believers are children of Abraham no less than Jewish believers are, are therefore all of the Israel of God.

Nevertheless I disagree with the Reformed / Amillennialists that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to Christians. I posted below my conclusion that it must refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem, and if the context is the Antichrist of the very last days sitting in that temple, this has to mean the temple will be restored, and there have been plans underway for decades now for that restoration.

I also disagree with them about the 70th week of Daniel (a post I haven't yet written). The first 69 weeks were a literal period of time counting up to the revelation of Christ as King in Jerusalem. The events right after that revelation do not fit into a "week of years" no matter how much nudging you do. The Lord Jesus was crucified within days of that revelation. There is simply no week of years to be found in that time frame or any time up to the present. Therefore it is right to think of that last 70th week as yet future. The Amillennialists take that week and turn it into an allegory of the obedience of Christ. Ridiculous.

None of this proves the timing of the Rapture one way or another.

More to come.

A Literal Historical and Future Day of the Lord

Now I'm remembering why I never got very far into studying eschatalogical/end times systems. I pay attention for a while, listen to sermons and lectures from different points of view, read a few books, take some notes, ponder various diagrams and charts, learn some scripture, in fact I learn quite a bit, but eventually I nevertheless get confused, mystified, overwhelmed and give up.

Of course I absorb some of the ideas, I do read the scripture -- I've even read Revelation a number of times -- so it's far from a total loss; in fact I'm much the better off for the studying I've done. It's just that I never felt any of the different systems was completely trustworthy, which means I always end up with objections I can't resolve and that the answer from any particular system just doesn't dispel.

Although there's always been quite a bit of fringey excess in the Pre-trib Rapture camp (mostly interpreting every eruption of violence in the Middle East as a major sign of the End) I never completely gave up on them because much of their thinking makes sense to me, and maybe more important, their critics just never do a fair job on them.

At the same time I pretty much rejected the pre-trib Rapture itself in favor of a post-tribulation rapture because I never could see how the last generation should be allowed to escape tribulation that the rest of the church has gone through for millennia. That's a conclusion based more on reason than on any specific scripture, of course, but most of the scriptures used to buttress the pre-trib Rapture are also never fully convincing, usually seem open to alternate interpretations. NONE of the arguments from ANY camp are FULLY convincing, so although I was predominantly post-trib I had to keep all lines open, and I never settled on any particular system.

So I've been getting discouraged again -- largely a result of spending too much time recently listening to amillennialist arguments perhaps --, but if I step back and assess my current understanding objectively I have to acknowledge that I am a step ahead of the stalemate I've usually fallen into. I did pick up some support for the Pre-trib Rapture after all -- really a pretty big boost for it if I think about it: That is, I HAVE become convinced that the Lord promised to protect His church from His wrath and that the "great tribulation" of Revelation is God's wrath (or most of it is -- there's little I can state with certainty in all this).

The Book of Revelation is about The Day of the Lord, after all, that is prophesied throughout the Old Testament and discussed as well in other books of the New Testament.

The Day of the Lord is undeniably God's wrath against rebellious humanity, or the "heathen" and "sinners" in the King James, and there are at least two clear statements that this certainly doesn't include His own faithful people:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

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.

If His church is "not appointed" to wrath, the implication is that He will protect us from it one way or another. This COULD be by removing us from the scene altogether before the wrath begins, as the Pre-trib people argue, or it could be by other means, such as miraculous sustenance and protection during the period of wrath (as He provided for Elijah during the period of the famine). The passage in Revelation does convey a somewhat alarming note of conditionality -- that is, those who have "kept the word of [His] patience" will be kept from it, but SOME of the church will nevertheless not escape it. That's one way to read it anyway.

So I am now this much closer to the Pre-Trib Rapture position. It's a lot closer than I was before I embarked on this exploration a couple weeks ago. So that has to be acknowledged.

I also have to add that this includes the recognition that the Day of the Lord is a specific event in history. God's wrath has certainly come against this world in many ways over the millennia, and scripture tells us that God's wrath "abides on" those who reject Him, that all human beings are "children of wrath" in our fallen nature, until we repent and submit to Him, but the Day of the Lord is something quite above and beyond this "normal" wrath.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

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.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Clearly this doesn't just imply that in our fallen condition we are destined for the final wrath of Hell, as I've sometimes read these verses, but also experience wrath in this world, as we inherit all kinds of suffering for sin through our fallen nature.

The Day of the Lord is presented as an intensification of extreme suffering beyond most of what is normally encountered in this world. And it is indisputably WITHIN this world that it is to be encountered, indisputably within history, and indisputably therefore MUST be yet future.*

=============================================
*I don't know how this is explained by the post-tribulationists and post-millennialists (who say the church is going through the events of God's wrath as laid out in Revelation), and the amillennialists (I'm trying to grapple off and on these days with the amillennialists' peculiarly mystifying ways of thinking and haven't yet come across any systematic treatment of the Day of the Lord) but it seems to me that if they recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day they would also have to reckon with God's promises to protect His church from it and therefore recognize a major claim for the pre-trib Rapture. Let me guess: They DON'T recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day of the Lord -- they manage to spread it out over the last 2000 years or spiritualize it in some way.

FOR REFERENCE: SCRIPTURE pertaining to the "DAY OF THE LORD"

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.

Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.

[What does this say? That it will be possible for some of the "house of Israel" to stand IN the Day of the Lord -- and that more might if they were supported rightly. The point is that the Day of the Lord is going to be survivable by some. Those who repent. Want to include here the commentary from Jamieson Fausset and Brown as it shows clearly the reason why God's own people may come under judgment]: 5. not gone up into . . . gaps--metaphor from breaches made in a wall, to which the defenders ought to betake themselves in order to repel the entrance of the foe. The breach is that made in the theocracy through the nation's sin; and, unless it be made up, the vengeance of God will break in through it. Those who would advise the people to repentance are the restorers of the breach (Eze 22:30; Ps 106:23,30).

hedge--the law of God (Ps 80:12; Isa 5:2,5); by violating it, the people stripped themselves of the fence of God's protection and lay exposed to the foe. The false prophets did not try to repair the evil by bringing back the people to the law with good counsels, or by checking the bad with reproofs. These two duties answer to the double office of defenders in case of a breach made in a wall: (1) To repair the breach from within; (2) To oppose the foe from without.

to stand--that is, that the city may "stand."

in . . . day of . . . Lord--In the day of the battle which God wages against Israel for their sins, ye do not try to stay God's vengeance by prayers, and by leading the nation to repentance.

Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Corinthians 1:14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

NOTE: The Day of the Lord is closely associated with the coming of Christ, both first and second coming, and sometimes the characteristics of the two events get confused because of their close association. I haven't yet sorted all this out myself, but I want to note it here that they need to be kept conceptually separated.