Outsourced us

We are stunned once again by another act of senseless carnage.  And once again, the blood had barely dried before an endless stream of calls for gun restrictions ensued.  This is turn is met with a far more muted call for more guns and the arming of people within schools.  Both have some sense to them.  And both miss the point.  And perhaps them missing the point is the point.

On the one hand, gun control seems like common sense.  The less guns on hand in general, the harder it is to find one with which to shoot people.  The less powerful and less able to fire rapidly, then less possible destruction.  The same day as the Newtown, Conn. massacre, a man in Chengping, China slashed 22 children and one adult with a knife.  The major difference is that all 22 children lived.  That is not to say that all Chinese school massacres ended so well, but that the death toll is often considerably lower.

So, fully automatic weapons are already illegal.  Let's further restrict semi-automatic versions of the assault rifles.  Adam Lanza had one.  But the shooters at Columbine didn't, instead using shotguns and a semi-automatic handgun.  So restrict those too.  In fact, carry this out further and you really need to ban every gun since just about every gun type is represented in such school or other public shootings.

But there are problems with this.  Firstly, it's much easier to ban future gun sales, than to find and confiscate owned weapons.  So a ban now might only have an effect decades from now as existing guns break and cannot be replaced.

Secondly, you can start outlawing and confiscating increasingly less destructive guns.  But that only works on law-abiding citizens willing to turn them over.  Criminals have no interest in complying.  Disarming the general population makes them more vulnerable to armed criminals, absent other steps.  Also, it will likely develop a black market that exists for people who shouldn't have such weapons to pay more to procure them anyway.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the population can limit such incidents where the shooters are not hardened criminals used to manipulating the system, but you're unlikely to stop them.  And anyway, if drugs can come over the Mexican border, so can (and do) guns.

Finally, it doesn't stop people from doing what they really want to do.  The worst school massacre was back in 1927, in Michigan.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Guns were more legal, but the shooter preferred dynamite, which was legal for sale to farms for a variety of good purposes.  Fast forward to the 1990s and Timothy McVeigh used a homemade massive feritilizer bomb for his carnage.  When all else fails, men from China use knives.

The law might limit the destruction but it can't escape human inginuity.  The unintended consequence of disarming the population is that criminals who keep their guns anyway become emboldened to do as they please.

Then there is the other side.  One man wishes that the principal had a gun of their own to put a stop to this.  This is foolish also.  Principals and teachers aren't soldiers.  This the same thing with post-911 asking pilots to carry guns.  Yes, there are scenarios where it would have been handy to have something, anything at hand.  But the idea of placing guns in such proximity with kids is unnerving.  Carelessness happens.  The principal shoots and misses and hits a kid.

No, you need training.  Armed security guards are a start.  We already have these at some public schools.  Do it for all.  Metal detectors.  An intrusive security presence.  Put the same level of security that we have now in federal buildings and embassies in schools.  Why don't we do this?  Simply cost.

And this is where the real problem starts to emerge.  In assuming that people will do these horrific acts, and that you can't really do much until they happen, in order to be "safe" you need the massive burden of a police state.  Post-911 this message has hit home.  People complain about their freedoms being eroded but largely accept this because they believe there is no other way to be "safe".  So freedoms are restricted and you build the enormously expensive monstrosity of security apparatus.

The problem is this: that a system based on freedom works only while people police themselves.  Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.  When people think of themselves as only free to do what they please, and refuse to respect the consequences of exercising that freedom, a society is forced to remove that freedom.  Because it is simply impossible for any outside person to judge every nuance of why someone exercises a freedom.  So everything is banned across the board.  Ten responsible gun owners who hunt rabbits lose their rifles along with the one who looks down the barrel to see if it is loaded.  Or thousands no longer see their relatives off at the airport gate because it's possible for someone to take advantage of this (even though the 911 hijackers had proper tickets).  Nail cutters were banned along with box cutters.  It's too hard to police every individual case, so you rule broadly.

Police are not the first responders.  Not really.  The first check on your actions is internal.  A strong conscience, a strong sense of honor and duty.  A strong revulsion towards evil.  When those checks begin to erode, there's not a army in the world that can keep the peace.

Outlawing guns won't work because you don't stop the evil and determined intentions.  Arming every last citizen doesn't work either because, beyond the bounds of common sense and the possibility of accidents, it's too costly to do this properly.  We need to stop this evil closer to the source, even if we cannot fully stamp it out of the world.

And that takes a determined, unified society.  America has changed.  We all see the values shifting.  Many hail this as progress, many decry this as doom.  Perhaps it is the immigrants coming in with different values, but my sense is that far more immigrants understand what it means to be American better than the natives, having come from more repressive, more restrictive societies.  The freedom to critique the government and start a business are of profound importance to people who were jailed for the one and taxed into oblivion for the other.  They are taken for granted for those who have never known anything else.

American is changing internally.  Late warnings include the growth of a welfare state to support increasing amounts of those not working, the obsession with putting every last detail of your life online in the hope of being "famous" (nearly every child wants to be famous, it seems, and many never grow up), we're far more casual in everyday interactions (remember when we wore suits every time we left the house?), and the public discourse is littered with obscenity and crass sexuality.

These are all among many evidences of the breakdown of self-discipline: neglecting the pride of self-sufficiency, forgetting dignity for the allure of popularity, intensely conscious of our own importance and neglectful of anyone else's, and oblivious to the notion of sanctity and sacredness of anything in life especially for public consumption.  Especially the value of life itself.  When only the "me" matters, nothing else will.

We forget that the government is "us".  It enforces our will, but our will drives it for our purposes.  There is no outside entity called "government" that we can take money from, or pay to autonomously take care of what we want.  We forget that the police are "us".  They are an extension of our desire for law and order and protection from those who breach them.  But the police come from our ranks.  The more we keep our eyes open for outside threats, the more we stick up for our neighbor viewing their lives as valuable as our own, the more we police ourselves and prevent us from carrying out the furtive desires of our heart when no one else is looking, the less the police have to do, the less intrusive they need to be, and the safer and happier everyone is.

But this means we are all involved.  This then means that we all have a common vision as to how society should look and what our parts are.  Which is all predicated on a common moral and ethical framework.

A rational society is defined as one that can perpetuate itself forever -- that can last without needing to change how it looks and operates.  Crucial to a rational society is a common moral framework and worldview.  But as we sink into a world that prizes tolerance above meaningful substance, as we cease to recognize the central moral authority that derives from our detailed understanding (and not just a vague sense) of a Creator, and as we put ourselves up in His place thinking ourselves central to our own little universe, the society becomes irrational.

For a people to exist and thrive there has to be something unifying them.  It must be above each man because each man must by necessity recognize its authority over them personally.  Anything that comes from our ranks won't do because each of us has our own peculiar sense of right and wrong.  No human created philosophy can hope to be universal because there is always someone who will disgree and refuse it.

When every man, to one extent or another, considers himself his own god, there is no hope that the situation will do anything else but deteriorate.  Human ingenuity combined with evil determination cannot be defeated by anti-gun laws.  Arming everyone is simply not feasible and will make for a miserable society while granting more opportunity for someone to betray trust and commit evil.

Lastly, we have to start believing again in evil.  We have consigned so many despicable acts to sterile and clinical terminology, struggling to determine root causes, all because we cling to this incessant desire that all men are created as neutral if not in fact good people.  So it must be the environment that changes them.  It must be some internal misfiring that makes someone who is inherently good commit murder.

But it is wishful thinking.  We're not inherently good, nor do you really have to teach a baby how to do something bad.  You have to teach them to control it, to love good and to fight the evil.  Bad comes naturally.  Good takes practice.

People who escaped the Holocaust and many other holocausts the world, and many who escape more modern problems in Latin America or Africa or Asia, have an easier time believing in evil than we do.  It's a living thing for them.  Apart from Christ, the civilized societies forget quickly and succumb to a lie that is their undoing.  The great British Empire was instrumental in stamping out much of the slave trade in one century, but in the next it waffled on moral responsibility, particularly on German ambition, consigned the world to unprecedented bloodshed, and has since been stripped of most distinctions apart from a bloated welfare state and health care death paths.

A rational society is one that incentivizes doing good, loving your neighbor as yourself, fostering the conditions that allow that decision to be properly made in the heart apart from laws.  As a last resort it too de-incentivizes doing evil through punishments meant not for fairness but a deterrent that appeals to an evil-doers sense of self-preservation.  But it requires common acceptance of a universal moral law, which requires common acceptance of a universal moral lawgiver, someone who does not come from our ranks but has the prerogative to dictate and the authority to enforce a moral law.  It also requires trust that final justice will be done apart from any efforts of our own.

Consider this: that these examples of evil have one thing in common.  They are determined to cause pain and misery; they may even take pride and satisfaction from it.  They make make headlines.  It may simply be seeing the pain.  But they generally put the gun to their head last because they believe in their heart that this it will be over.  They can cause as much destruction as they want, and then after that last trigger its all over.  They go out with a bang, leaving what they want, escaping what they don't.

Think about it: at its heart, this is entirely a "me" centered act.  Impress my pain and power on others, and protect myself from the consequences.  Such suicide shows itself as an act of self-preservation more often than contemplative remorse.

Adam Lanza is not far removed from Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Goering.  The apparent difference is magnitude of the horror. Perhaps the real difference is simply opportunity.

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

The beauty and radical nature of the Hebrew law in ancient times was that even the king was answerable to God.  In modern times we talk about constitional monarchies (where the king answers to the people) or even constitutional democracies (where the representatives answer to the people), but this depends on the people being sound judges which they are not.

If we all lived every day under the shadow of coming judgment would we dare to commit such overt sins as we do?  Would we dare to commit the more commonplace "victimless crimes" we do daily?

1 Pet 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?

But for this to happen, we ought to be rushing to tell people, rushing to help them believe, and praying for them.  Instead of locked in our ivory towers, pretending that the world is as nice as we think we are, until its our sons and daughters being carried out of what used to be a safe, innocent place.

We have outsourced our responsibilities, not simply as citizens outsourcing to a government, but God-fearing lights of the world outsourced to our churches and pastors.  And we are reaping the rewards.  The light is going out.  And as it goes out we find ourselves more and more at the mercy of a darkness that lives in the hearts of each one of us.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

2 Tim 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. ² People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³ without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, ⁴ treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— ⁵ having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

When we cast away the common sense of a just and sovereign God, we become free to cast away our sense of evil in ourselves.  In seeing ourselves as primarily good, we remove our natural restrictions and so open the floodgates to a world of evil.  Unable to properly tell one from the other, we simply scratch our heads in confusion when these things happen.  This past century has known evil beyond anything imagined in history, at the same time that God disappeared from public view faster than at any other time. We are simply becoming the latest iteration.

How many times did Peter deny Jesus?

A point of trivia for me.  I remember many years ago, at an Easter service, my pastor throwing in a short side note that Peter denied Jesus at least three times if not as many as six.  And then he moved on.  I wondered if mine were the only ears that tingled hearing that.  Of course it was three times -- Jesus said so.  So I asked him after the sermon and he replied directly that if I examined each denial from the four Gospels, I might wind up with more than three unique denials.

So I did, admittedly trying hard to reconcile each denial with others that were similar -- might two denials actually be the same denial event?  Reading as liberally as I might, without much more than a concordance to help me with the Greek, I could condense six events into potentially four attempting to preserve the order, but that was stretching.  John and Mark apparently do some condensing of their own.

I happened to be digging through old files -- I'm something of a pack rat when it comes to digital files -- looking for the short comparison I did.  I couldn't found it but I did find a page from the now defunct DiscoverTheBook.org which showed pretty much the same, with better elaboration so I'll simply paste from the article.

I'm not troubled by each Gospel writer accounting for three, perhaps remembering only that Jesus had prophesied three denials.  But poor Peter, so afraid and lost in a flurry of instinctive, self-preserving denials.  I cannot imagine his fear as Jesus stood yards away from him, taken by an army, and them separated from him.

Perhaps it alters slightly the convenient symmetry of Jesus prophesying three denials and then responding thrice that he did when Jesus asked if he loved him thrice.





From DiscoverTheBook.org "GALLICANTU From the Cradle to the Cross:  Peter’s Darkest Hour-5"


How many times Did Peter Deny Jesus?
A careful study of all four Gospels reveals that Peter actually denied Jesus six times. Each time, each place, each denial is clearly different from the others. And if taken in order they clearly make a precise fulfillment of Christ's warning to Peter in Mark 14. And remember – that is in Mark because Peter could never forget what Jesus had said to HIM!
Mark 14:70-72 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.” 71 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this Man of whom you speak!” 72 A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “ Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.
The First Series of Three.

• The First Denial, John 18: 17 Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

• Place : the door (thura) without.
• Time : entering.
• The questioner : the porteress (Greek thuroros).

• The Second Denial, Matthew 26: 70 (Mark 14: 68 ). Matthew 26:69-70 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.” 70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.” Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed.

• Place : the hall (aule).
• Time : sitting.
• Questioner : a certain maid. Luke 22: 56 - 58 combines the same place and time, with the same maid, and another (heteros, masculine).

• The Third Denial in Matthew 26:71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”

• Place : the gateway, or porch (pulon).
• Time : an interval of an hour. John 18: 25, 26 combines the same place and time, with another maid and bystanders, one of them being a relative of Malchus.

The 1 st COCK CROWS: Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed. John 18:27 Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

• The Second Series of Three. The First Denial, Mark 14: 69 And the servant girl saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, “This is one of them.”

• Place : "beneath in the hall".
• Time : shortly after.
• Questioner : the maid again.

• The Second Denial in Matthew 26:73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.” Mark 14:70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.”

• Place : the gate (pulon).
• Time : shortly after.
• Questioner : the bystanders.

• The Third Denial in Luke 22:59-60 Then after about an hour had passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, “Surely this fellow also was with Him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying!” Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed.
• 
  
• Place : the midst of the hall (aule, verse 55 ).
• Time : "an hour after" (verse 59 ).
• Questioner : a certain one (masculine).

THE 2 ND COCK CROWS: Matthew 26:74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!” Immediately a rooster crowed.
Mark 14:72 A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.
Luke 22:61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” We thus have a combined record in which there remains no difficulty, while each word retains its own true grammatical sense.

Never safe, Eternally safe

Thoughts from the book of Daniel:

Some 2600 years or so ago, four young boys, along with the flower of Jewish intelligentsia, began a long hard march across deserted areas, a journey of as much as 1000 km, to the great city of Babylon where they were selected for training as early Janissaries in the service of the newly acceded king, Nebuchadnezzar II.  Within a short period of time, perhaps months or a year, they were presented to the king who confirmed them in his services and found them peerless, far beyond the best ministers of state within the empire.  Even so, they might have been slaughtered at the whim of the king for failing to do the impossible, because all others could hardly be trusted in doing even what was possible.  So they prayed, and Daniel did the impossible and interpreted a dream that the king withheld.  Thus, Daniel suddenly became very wealthy, and was made the governor over the entire province of the capital, jewel of the Near East, including the city and all government within it.  After royal confirmation, Daniel's three friends were similarly elevated under him, set over the affairs of the capital and its environs, heads of their departments of state, while Daniel liased with the king at the palace.

In seventy or so years, still in power after at least one dynastic change, this same Daniel would stand before the crown prince of the empire, lost in debauched revels while his father stood with an army in the field against the combined might of Media and Persia ascendant, as an old man risking his life on his integrity to announce imminent doom when the outcome was still unsure.

For one night this old man is named the vice-regent of the empire, third in line of formal succession and granted all the vestments and pomp of nearly unlimited authority even as King Nabonidus was swallowing the news that a small contingent of Persians had outflanked his strong point on the Euphrates and had advanced to the unaware capital, damming and diverting the river around it prior to special forces insertion.

In the month from the time that the city was lost to Cyrus II, the Great, the shahanshah king of kings, personally arriving to survey his conquest, it may well have been that newly minted vice-regent of the empire who oversaw the smooth negotiations of the city's transfer.  It might have been in those first months that Daniel was sized up as integral and an honest broker, and in a rare continuance of government in the ancient world, found so trustworthy as to retain his absolute pre-eminence over the massive new acquisition of the Babylonian sphere, overseeing 120 regional governors and their offices.  His own office, charged with efficient administration, would dictate policy in favor of the new owners, conduct certifications and vetting of delegated regional and local governments, and oversee a wildly successful anti-corruption and auditing program that proved impossible to subvert, disrupting several millenia of practice in this part of the world.  There would be no scandals, no revelations that stuck against the man in charge making him as boring to the local media as he was a threat to everyone else of rank who preferred "business as usual".

It's hard to imagine a comparable position in today's world.  Perhaps being named president over Russia in the days of the former Soviet Union, answerable only to a handful of high party officials including the premier.  And your friends are your chiefs of staff, handling the higher affairs of administration, filtering the information that you need to take with you to the Kremlin.  And you have been elevated from the position of a minor bureaucrat, and you're perhaps not even 20 years of age.  But even this lacks the imperial grandeur of Babylon because in those days, that empire stood alone at the top of the known world.  And even at the height of its power, the USSR was decayed and brittle internally, relatively poor per person compared to it neighbors.  Babylon would endure no cold war and its rival would only quickly upset it and take its place at the top.  There may be few administrators (if any) who have survived that many dynastic and conquest changes while continuing so close to the pinnacle of power.

We may forget, in reading these stories, just who they were who were cast into a giant brick kiln likely used in constructing that 90 ft obelisk with Marduk's image.  And who that old man was who was so unceremoniously removed from the royal palace to the lion pen.  In that world, and even as in ours, few ever make it that high up, and few ever should have had so much trust in the power they wielded.

And yet, in both cases, one compelled by the paganism of a king unifying his empire in the worship of one chief idol, one a combination of absurd vanity and an unchangeable legal framework, Daniel and his chief lieutenants were so quickly removed from their posts to be executed.  The KGB rarely matched the ease of the demise of these officials.  Even Stalin needed show trials with his more prominent threats.

It is a reminder to us that, even in these times, even in this country where we pride ourselves in being a nation of laws, we have no guarantee from our situations against the evil and fickle desire of the world around, and in few other areas is their wrath so sharp as when we threaten their worldview and evil practices, even simply by being something other than they.  Those who hate God, hate His people.  And they may be driven to overwhelming evil, either sudden or plotted over a long period, and such evil rejoices tremendously when it can rip out another servant of God, shouting in barbaric defiance at the thought of the deity who accuses them in conscience.  As bad as those kings were, in both cases men of integrity were trapped and happily sold out by those who wanted what they had, power and money, and resented them.

John 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you."

Five hundred years after, one far more righteous than Daniel would say these words and be handed over to death for a sum far less than any Persian or Babylonian official would have gotten out of bed for.

The better life is, the more secure we feel.  The more complacent we become.  And perhaps the least visible, the more compromising, and the least useful we are.  We remember Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah among how many thousands of other Jewish boys and girls who "made it" because of what they did even with the wrath of empires against them.  And for them it was sudden and they did not waver.  The others -- I'm sure a lot of them stopped to tie their sandal laces when the time came.

Nothing guarantees persecution more than us being willing to deal with our sinfulness and then lead a life of integrity, even if we barely give a spoken word.  If only we had that drive.  It's so much easier to appear "mostly with integrity".

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
(Mat 10:16-22)

Our response ought to be that of the three Hebrew Janissaries:

"If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. "

(Dan 3:17-18)

Christian Capitalism

One of the difficulties I had throughout this disappointing election period is that often it seemed the the conservative position seemed to gravitate towards an almost Ayn Rand formulation for the economy, which the liberal position loved to attack as such.  While not really going to that clear of a formulation of free market ideals, they nonetheless spoke of balanced budgets, responsibility and freedom as paramount virtues with other considerations seemingly a sidenote.  To which the other side, devoid largely of economic sense, countered by painting them as soul-less economic ideologues disconnected from sympathy to people doing poorly.  Whatever the likelihood that the conservative position was far better for the economy, I had to think the following:

We live in a sinful world.  For the liberal position, government being the principle centerpiece for charitable and comfort work is a destructive sham, encouraging corruption, waste, entitlement and an erosion of work and creative ethics.  Government stepping into popular morality has only hastened our ugly spiral downward.  For the conservative side, despite the support of many religious, "greed is good" is not a virtue even if it gets the economy going.  Phrase it as you want, it is never much of a rallying cry.

Only the Judeo-Christian worldview properly juxtaposes "those who do not work don't eat" with "love your neighbor as yourself".  Capitalism is by far the most efficient and rewarding system for economic resource distribution, but devoid of a morality that cannot be supplied by legislation, is as empty as it was attacked to be.  Christians, whose first thought is that they are stewards of God's resources, humbled by their own debt to God as sinners and his grace, alone are equipped by God to make the most of what they have and upbuild a society.  In this society, men are free to create wealth, a tide lifting all boats, but they as individuals rush headlong to charitable concerns beholden to no government but their God.  All other roads lead to ruin and the moral bankruptcy that is our system on both sides of the aisle.

The problem with Washington isn't the party -- it's that there are too few people who serve the Living God and hold His perspective on the value and purpose of a life.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Objections part 3

Addressed: 5 Reasons the rapture takes place before the Tribulation:

Argument FOR the rapture: “Belief in an “any-moment” return of Christ… every other view nullifies this. Something always has to happen first, and people say get ready. If something must take place before an event happens, that event is not imminent.” Jas 5:7-9, 1 John 2:28

First, the verses for this argument:

James 5

7 Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. 8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9 Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

10 Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Here James prescribes patience. There is then an implied reason for some impatience or desperation. Further patience recommended is along the lines of a farmer waiting for the one things that is absolutely crucial to his livelihood, that his efforts cannot in the least affect, and which will bring him the thing he most hopes for. So this is the culmination of his hopes and efforts which he waits for.

The implied reason in the next verses is their suffering. Like the prophets and Job they are told to endure so they can see the ultimate end of their hope and suffering in blessing full of compassion and mercy.

However, despite the imminence of the Lord’s coming, this doesn’t in and of itself preclude other events that may precede it which may be of themselves imminent.

1 John 2

28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

This doesn’t seem to address the particulars of Jesus’ imminence beyond that we should be ready and unashamed of our efforts.

The question I have from this argument of imminence is in outright excluding any antecedent event which could also be considered part of the main event, or excluding events which occur with varying intensity or frequency which in and of themselves cannot lead to an exact prediction of when the main event occurs, even if they are a recognizable prelude to it.

First you have, Matt 24. V36 has an explicit “no one knows the day or the hour” which immediately follows a brief analogy of observing a fig tree to know when the summer is near. This is after we talk about a time of distress, the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky, prior to Christ’s Second Coming. Moreover, we are told to learn the lesson of the fig tree (observing branches to understand the general season or time frame). After a reference to the people of Noah’s day being caught up to judgment not being aware, we are told to keep watch because we don’t know the day or the hour. And we are told to be ready, whenever that comes. The language, in this context, seems especially given in order to keep us away from the judgment that is coming that will fall on a less observant world.

So on the one hand, we don’t know the day or the hour. On the other hand, we are told to keep watch for signs (already given) so we are not surprised. This sounds like more than an implication that for the Second Coming, though no one knows the day or hour, there will be preceding, accompanying signs that give some deliberate clue as to how near things are.

If giving signs of the times is not incompatible with not knowing the day or the hour, and its in the context of this Second Coming with judgment that “we” are told to watch and be ready, then these are compatible things. So the argument that any event that could proceed a rapture and negate its imminence appears hollow in that Matt 24 shows that this is possible with respect to the Second Coming.

Similarly, Mark 13 is a parallel passage. In v29: Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. This is a Second Coming passage. We are told that “we” will see these things happening, including the Son of Man coming in the clouds. We are told to be alert, watching for the Lord’s return and ready, whenever that is. If there are no preceding signs, we can always be ready, but watching has no meaning. The fig tree analogy is utterly wrong and the events told us before in this chapter don’t actually help us.

It sounds like the difference between us and the world is that they don’t know any of this stuff will happen. We’re always ready whenever it happens, but when it starts to happen, even before a rapture event, we’re not surprised by the events, we know what they signal. We still don’t know the exact day or the hour, but we know when things are near because we have been told what to expect.

Admittedly, the larger consequence of this is that if a rapture is post-Tribulation, that means the whole host of events in Revelations between Chapter 4 and 20 must precede the rapture. As many as they are, if the events predicted in Matt 24 do not violate the “no one knows the day or the hour” then I have to assume if we are given a greater detail of these “days of distress” that this does not violate that sense of imminence either. Doesn’t make it easy, but I don’t think the argument of imminence is enough to force a less natural reading of the primary scriptures covered above.

Then the 5 argued reasons themselves:

Reason 1:

The church is specifically exempted from the wrath of God. 1 Thess 5:9, 1 Thess 1:10. This fits perfectly with a pre-Tribulation rapture. The tribulation events are the unfolding wrath of the Lamb of God.

Agreed, but we have to be careful in determining what wrath are we spared and how, knowing that there are different forms of wrath, some directed at people, some in general; some the church shares because it is in the world along with sinners, some we don’t (including eternal wrath) because we are redeemed. To outright say that we are to be spared from God’s wrath, and that since the Tribulation is God’s outpouring of wrath, we must be spared that ignores that we suffer from the consequences of God’s wrath (as per Rom 1) poured on the world for its sin, and even the Hebrews suffered alongside the Egyptians up to a point in their plagues.

1 Thess 5:9 should be read in the context of v8. We are to be sober, putting on love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For/Because God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So you’ve got a contrast between suffering wrath and salvation through Christ, which is the reason for our behavior. Does this mean this can’t refer to any impact of Tribulation wrath which is directed against the world? No. But then, you have v10 which talks about Christ dying for us so we may live with him. While it is true generally that, in being saved we are no longer children of wrath and that Tribulation wrath can’t be directly applied to us by God, the wrath in view here is more likely eternal wrath.

Since we still suffer alongside the world in whatever judgments, acute or general, that God applies to the world as a consequence of being in it, this passage simply isn’t telling us enough to give us confidence that we will also be explicitly spared any presence in the Tribulation.

1 Thess 1:10 also begs the question of what coming wrath are we saved from? I don’t think enough can be read from this to explicitly say we will not be present during the Tribulation wrath. Especially in light of the explicit and implicit indications that we will from the scriptures above.

Reason 2:

1 Thess 4 Why didn’t God comfort them in their expected death rather than promising relief?

Possibly because even to that last moment, not all of the believers would be dead by the Second Coming if it coincides with a rapture event. The question is still essentially speculative.

Reason 3:

Rev 3:10 The promise to Philadelphia is to keep them (out) from the hour of trial coming on the whole world to test those who live in the world. Christ didn’t say they would be preserved through; different language would have been used.

I don’t think this is a good argument for the Church being spared the Tribulation period. Firstly, while the language certainly sounds like we’re talking about Tribulation trial and testing that comes on the whole earth, the reason Philadelphia is preserved is conditioned upon their enduring patience. Their being spared is a reward.

But Philadelphia is one of seven churches, many of whom are not as warmly received or rewarded. There’s no indication that other churches will be explicitly spared. While the letters to the churches may apply to all the church at all time periods, I think it gets into very complex arguments to argue either that Philadelphia can represent the whole church which will be spared, or that the churches must be time periods where, if Philadelphia is spared the tribulation, so must any subsequent church. In fact, that still doesn’t work because if the Tribulation happens after some Philadelpia, that puts Laodicea in the middle potentially and you’re still back to the original problem that some Christians endure the Tribulation. So at best, you simply have Philadelphia being spared, but no other mention.

Reason 4:

The rapture is for the church. The 7-year Tribulation time is for Israel to be prepared to receive Christ.

It makes sense from what I’ve long believed, but that’s not actually a proof. We know Israel is in focus after Rev 7 but we still don’t have an explicit declaration that all of the church is gone by then and its only Israel. Really, you need the church gone by Rev 4 to escape the Seals judgments which are horrific in and of themselves. Beyond the scene shifting to heaven which may mean something or nothing, we have no indication of such an incredible, crucial event for the church.

Reason 4b:

There must be several events that happen between the rapture and the Second Coming (e.g. the marriage).

This appears to be derived from the assumption that a pre-Tribulation rapture occurs around Rev 4, and at least before Rev 7. So then we get a list of events that happen between those chapters and Rev 19 where Christ comes in glory. But no explicit declaration of a rapture appears anywhere before Rev 19, so it’s an assumption if reasonable. We just don’t have any direct statement that suggests certain events must happen between a rapture and the Second Coming in glory/judgment.

Reason 5:

Complete lack of evidence that the church goes through the Tribulation. Church mention stops around Rev 6. If the church is meant to go through the Tribulation, even in part, wouldn’t this be mentioned? Major troubles in the world aren’t it. We go through those.

With the earlier verses in view, I think there’s even less evidence that we are explicitly spared this time period. Another problem is distinguishing Church from believing Israel. It’s still all one salvation (and so all Israel will be saved). We are no more/less the Church than the original Israeli believers. When the focus returns to Israel are they any more/less the Church when they turn to God? What we know is that there are believers after Rev 7. We’re only talking about Jewish believers at that point as God’s focus comes back to Israel. But you need some explicit statement to rule out any Gentile believers left. Most may have been raptured up, most killed prior to this, most may have slowly died off prior, but I don’t think this is conclusive one way or another. Again, the focus is now back on Israel, fulfilling Rom 11. The Gentile period of the church is clearly over. In the same way that Gentiles were not really in focus during Jesus’ ministry despite some forays in Samaria and the Gaderenes, maybe it’s not strange that the Gentile Church is no longer in focus by Rev 8. Again, I think something more explicit is needed to rule out any Gentile believers in this period.

A Parallel:

Parallel between pre-tribulation rapture and customs of Jewish wedding. Bride and groom remain hidden from view of those on earth for 7 days, then are married and show themselves in glory.

I really like this parallel. But it’s also a parallel. It works as long as the underlying verses demonstrate conclusively that the church is gone before those 7 years. But if that interpreting isn’t right, then the Jewish tradition can’t prove anything. We’d need something along the lines of, for example, type/antitype where temple sacrifices are declared to foreshadow Christs, or that Hagar or Sarah demonstrate the relationship between covenants.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Objections part 2

Objection:

John 14 makes it absolutely clear that a post-Tribulation cannot be.

John 14 doesn’t seem to preclude other purposes or actions upon his return. But he speaks narrowly to his disciples, words of encouragement, and words particular to them. In normal speech, we don’t expect a person to speak comprehensively on a topic at every moment. Similarly, if Jesus’ audience is narrowed, and the purpose of his words are narrowed, there’s no reason for surprise that the scope of his words will focus only upon a thing he is doing to love his disciples.

Objection:

The rapture does not become all that comforting for the Church… Jesus wasn’t even promising to take the disciples to heaven… you’re never going to be taken to the Father’s house… we meet Jesus in the air and then do a U-turn and come down to earth.

While I agree that a post-Tribulation rapture is not as comforting to the immediate church as a pre-Tribulation rapture might be, it is nonetheless very comforting in presenting an end to the suffering and reward. The same problem of lack of relief applies both to a pre-Tribulation rapture as it might to the pre-Millenial First Resurrection. We can say what’s the purpose, if the kingdom has arrived? But the purpose is to stop the suffering, reward the saints, and give them the promised resurrection. The First Resurrection is the culmination of everything the saints have been waiting for in their suffering.

Too, while the Tribulation is horrible, why should God abandon any of his people during it the same way he didn’t during the Holocaust or the Inquisitions? His grace is sufficient. And saints are slaughtered throughout the whole book such that by Rev 6 (and its not even done yet), dead martyrs under the altar are crying out for vengeance and are told to wait until the full number of them are killed. This might be before Rev 7 where the Great Company are in heaven, but by Rev 9 with the trumpets in full blast, those sealed by God (the previous 144,000) are still very much in play on the earth alongside the wicked.

As for John 14’s promise, I had a hard time with this argument that a post-Tribulation rapture indicates we never get to the Father’s house. The simple argument is that, if a rapture is post-Tribulation, and Jesus says we are taken to the Father’s house, then of course we are, whether it seems clear or not.

But I now have to wonder if maybe we are not getting this whole concept of heavenly and earthly kingdom wrong because of too many assumptions we bring to the scripture. Lack of imagination or understanding on my part isn’t a reliable test for interpreting verses.

In Rev 21 you the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. I used to think of this as the city is moving downward, but the rest of the chapter says nothing of the sort. The city is so massive it breaks way past the highest atmospheric barriers, at least of our current planet. There is no temple because the Father and Son are the temple in the city, and provide light to the world. Essentially they live in it. And you have a glorified Christ as the perfect “God-man”. And we are like Christ. We know from scripture Christ sits eternally in heaven, and we read in Rev 21 that he is the temple on a new earth.

Is it possible that the raptured Resurrection promised in 1 Cor 15 to heavenly forms and the First Resurrection in Rev 20 to earthly reigns are essentially one and the same result for us? We can still be taken up into the clouds to meet the Lord, and be with him forever, and at once be in heaven and on earth reigning with Christ. Right or wrong, if my imagination is stuck trying to envision what scripture teaches, that’s not a good argument against that interpretation. We don’t do a U-turn back to earth.

And even so, how does John 14 still stand if we are raptured into heaven into that heavenly home, and we only use it for 7 years before coming down to earth?

I don’t know enough about the classic post-Tribulation position, so maybe people do advocate that there is only a glorified earthly body somehow. But from 1 Cor 15, it’s clear to me it’s a heavenly body and when we are raptured, we remain in that state forever, and if we’re reigning with Christ over earth, that’s all part of it too.

So I didn’t see this as incompatible at all.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Objections part 1

Objection:

“The rapture of the church must happen before the coming of Jesus to earth in glorious judgment. Why is that? Well for the obvious reason that there be no reason to remove us from earth after Jesus has already come back to earth to establish his visible reign from Jerusalem. That makes no sense at all. The rapture after Jesus lands on the planet becomes irrelevant. It’s not needed anymore. What’s the point of rapturing us off when Jesus has already come back to the planet and set up his kingdom?”

While a timeline making sense helps reinforce what we believe, I had difficulty taking it as a reason. If the rapture is combined with the second coming during the Rev 19 timeframe (which is also when the marriage of the lamb occurs and the beast is defeated) it may make perfect sense to God and I’m just having difficulty processing it where I thought another way made more sense.

Objection: There are Distinctions between rapture and second coming

“There are major, major distinctions between the rapture and the second coming, proper, when he comes to earth.”

“At the rapture, the saints will meet Christ in the air, whereas at the second coming the Lord descends to the mount of Olives. At the rapture, the Lord comes to save us. There is no judgment found in any of the rapture passages.”

I don’t think that’s quite correct. While there may be time compression in play with 1 Cor 15, the whole argument of the existence of a resurrection for believers is flushed out with the timeline where Christ is raised first, then those who are Christ’s, then the end when Christ’s enemies become his footstool. Even with time compression, the use of these terms directly associates Christ dominating the world with the resurrection.

2 Thess 1, while not categorically a “rapturing into the air” passage, puts relief for the living believers (“you”) together with a return in mighty judgment in the very same time frame.

As noted above, many of the time frame elements seem very similar from passages that do mention judgment to those that mention rapture events. It’s not as solid a connection as passages that mention both, but the fact that both details and time frame elements seem the same, should also legitimately link the two events.

The common recurrence of believers being alive for both second coming and rapture events also should link the two.

Distinction:

“There’s no mention in John 14 of Jesus returning to earth to take the throne and judge the world and to slaughter his enemies. In clear contrast, the emphasis of the second coming passages is judgment, judgment, judgment.”

In the same way we tend to talk about different components of a doctrine (e.g. sun hardens the wax, softens the clay), it may or may not be significant that even if we see common time frame elements, since the rapture of the saints and the judgment of the world are different concepts, they can be handled separately in the texts.

Distinction:

No mention of a millennial kingdom mentioned in the rapture passages.

There is also no mention of a millennial kingdom outside of Rev 20 so that wouldn’t necessarily work one way or another. Pre-Revelations mentions of the “kingdom” seem to condense elements of what we associate with an eternal kingdom, with eternal qualities, into a simple word. The 1000 years is a fixed span period where, despite ruling saints and Satan bound, you still appear to have sin and rebellion and even potentially death, which seems to set it somewhat apart from earlier promises of the kingdom being forever and pain free, etc.

It may or may not be the 1000 years kingdom that in 2 Thess 1 we’re counted worthy of, for example, especially since our inheritance is to be eternal. Christ ruling from Jerusalem could potentially describe both the 1000 year kingdom (where a capital is not explicit) or the New Jerusalem eternal state which has been turned over to the God. So the absence of “kingdom” references in rapture passages, I don’t think can be conclusive.

Distinction:

All believers will be removed from the earth (at the rapture). At the second coming all unbelievers are removed. Only believers make it into the messianic kingdom.

I’m weaker on this point, but from Rev 19, the massive slaughter and destruction seems limited to the leaders and soldiers of the armies, when beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. I can’t find anything here that explicitly says all unbelievers are destroyed. From 2 Thess 1, we know that Christ’s second coming ushers in final judgment. Rev 20 has an explicit timeline where First Resurrection precedes 1000 years precedes Second Resurrection and final judgment. The Second Resurrection has writing that suggests a totality of the scope of this action over dead people. That is, if at the Second Coming exactly Christ condemns unbelievers at that point and the Second Resurrection is for any unbelievers who come after (e.g. rebels at the end of the 1000 years when Satan is loosed), this language seems to be more comprehensive then dealing with a subset of unbelievers. And its at the Second Resurrection that death/hades (seemingly unending conditions) are ended and people are consigned to eternal punishment. The eternality of these qualities suggests strongly that Rev 20 is the un-compressed timeline of the judgment theme that is normally compressed into his second coming.

So I’m not yet convinced that unbelievers are all wiped out before the 1000 years. Even if they are, there are still unbelievers during the 1000 years anyway. Too, if the rapture is pre-Tribulation, clearly from the Revelation there are also still believers. So the symmetry of believers removed at the rapture, followed by only unbelievers during the Tribulation, followed by only believers in the 1000 years doesn’t seem to stand well.

Distinction:

1 Thess 4:13-18 Only believers see Christ.

While the passage only talks about the believers and Christ, I don’t think it shows conclusively that no one else sees him either. Only believers are in view here, but I expect this passage would give neither a pre-Tribulation or post- position much difficulty. The language, however, is consistent with the trumpet call in Matt 24 when the whole world does see and mourn Christ. Maybe the same trumpet, maybe not, but the language seems common to most of these passages.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Matt 24

Matthew 24

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. […]

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b]

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

[…] 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Because of the apocalyptic language and end-times references, while much of this could refer primarily to earlier times (I’ve heard that argument) it reasonable to add this to this list of end times descriptions, especially since you referenced parts in your sermon.

First, the timeframe is a time of distress. The days are shortened for the sake of the elect, specifically their very survival. Watching will help us be ready. And therefore, there must be something to watch.

Here is an event where no one knows the day or the hour, but the Lord considers it important for us to be able to tell when it is near, so we are given guidance. This does not contradict the necessity of us being ready for him when he comes at such an unexpected hour, and in fact is meant to help us.

Immediately after you have major cosmic events, then you have the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, followed by the peoples of the earth mourning when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, which is already reminiscent of Acts 1. The Son of Man comes with power and great glory. He will send his angels, again, with a loud trumpet call. And at this time he gathers his elect from the four winds (living saints on earth, presumably) and from all over heaven (dead saints).

The context of Matt 24 is heavy with judgment. In fact the whole theme of being prepared is more fully flushed out in the three parables of Matt 25 which end in the final, end-time judgment separation of sheep and goats.

You now have this short theme discussing a taking away in judgment, similar to Noah’s day. I think MacArthur was the first to clue me into the possibility that those taken away (as in a rapture event) aren’t in fact the saved, it’s the ones left behind.

And therefore we’re told to keep watch because we don’t know the day or the hour. But in this case, we are specifically told about prophetic events including a massive time of distress that would kill everyone unless God shortened it, which precedes cosmic events, which precedes the apocalyptic coming of Christ and usher’s in final judgment language.

We are also told that when we see these things, we will know it’s near. So we are supposed to recognize the signs when they happen, and when we do it will make a difference in our lives. If a rapture happens suddenly, preceded by nothing, this instruction is useless for the people it’s directed to.

So this may not be useful as a rapture passage anyway, if those “taken away” are for judgment, but if Christ’s return in the clouds is one in glory only, then this precludes a prior rapture.

In 1 Thess 4, we go to meet Jesus in the air in the clouds as he comes down. When he comes down in the clouds, in Matt 24, all the people of the world mourn. In Acts 1, his first return to his people is via these clouds.

This seems to suggest then a consistency where when Jesus does not return to the world until after the Tribulation is completed (Rev 19-20) and at that time you have the “changing” and “resurrection” events fully and properly for the Church. Christ takes us while he is in the air, returning, but he doesn’t stop his descent to set up the kingdom of earth.


Objection 1:

Matthew 24. Verses 1-2 speak of the destruction of the Temple (presumably the one that took place in 70 AD). After that, Jesus speaks of the events leading up to His return to earth (the Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation period). Yes, this is parallel to the Acts 1 reference. The "elect" here are those referred to in Revelation 7 above. They get saved due to the worldwide preaching of the gospel that takes place during the Tribulation, as mentioned in v. 14. When Jesus says "you", He's referring to the nation of Israel. This is the focus of Matthew's gospel, and it was Jesus' specific focus at the end of chapter 23 leading up to the discourse that begins in chapter 24. He was warning Israel (and the nations that would experience the Tribulation), not the Church. 1 Thessalonians 4 must be a different (and prior) event, since there He takes the elect to be with Him (to the Father's house, as in John 14); they leave the earth. Whereas in Matthew 24, He returns to the earth and begins the judgment of the nations followed by the Millenium on earth. The U-turn theory {{DJP: i.e. we go up to meet Christ and then immediately return to Earth with Him}} doesn't make sense, and doesn't fit the other biblical data.

As for the destruction of all the unbelievers when Christ returns, see His judgment of the nations in Matthew 25:31-46. Yes, there will be unbelievers during the Millennium, but they are apparently born to believers during the Millennium. In fact, there will be so many of them that Satan, after being released at the end of the Millennium, will enlist them in one final battle against Christ [Rev 20:7-10].

And yet, history records that early Christians did take this warning seriously and fled to the hills and were spared the Roman destruction that rained down no Israel.

So, here the argument is made that this information is primarily directed to the people living during the Tribulation who are not necessarily the elect. I can see this. But we still haven’t proven at this point that there are no elect living at this time. In fact, those distressful days prior to the Lord’s coming are shortened for the sake of the survival of the elect who evidently live at that time. V32 starts several parallels for those days of distress, that precede the Lord’s coming. If we take them, as written in the chapter, to come after the Lord’s coming which is then a pre-tribulation rapture, then you have to deal with all the obvious signs to the world that are supposed to be not-actually evident yet at the rapture and that’s another headache with less than satisfying explanations (my opinion).

So, we’re left with another explanation applied to this passage, but I don’t think we’ve proved what we need, which is that the Church is absolutely taken up prior to the tribulation. We have to explain who these elect are, these believers are at this time, but without indication that they are absolutely distinct.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, John 14

John 14

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

I don’t see this proving/disproving much about other possible events surrounding the rapture. Christ leaves to prepare a room in his father’s house. When he comes back, he will take the saints to be with him. But, as it wouldn’t in any similar modern conversation, this doesn’t necessarily exclude any other action Christ might take at his return. That is, none of these appear as comprehensive statements about everything Christ will do. Nor does it even explicitly say that the only reason Christ is going away is to prepare these rooms. This is something he does upon his departure, and it is at least one purpose for his departure. If he goes to prepare a place, he will also return for them to take them to it.


Objection 1:

John 14:1-4. It's important to see that Jesus refers here to taking the believers away with Him to heaven (where He's preparing the rooms). This can't be referring to His second coming, at which time He will come back to earth and reign here for 1,000 years. So this must be referring to the rapture, as described in 1 Thessalonians 4.

I think there’s an inconsistency here, because in the comment on 1 Thess 4:13-18, it was suggested that we received at a pre-tribulation rapture glorified bodies suited for both heaven and a Millennial Earth.

So, in one scenario, the pre-tribulation rapture, you have the Church taken up to heaven for seven years, to return to earth with Christ after the tribulation.

In the proposed scenario, you have the Church taken up after the tribulation to return to Earth immediately.

While on the surface, the second sounds illogical, that we do an immediate about-face and go back to earth instead of to heaven where our rooms are prepared, I’m not much more comforted by having rooms in heaven we occupy for only seven years. It’s still a very short period of time.

We are to dwell with Christ for eternity, so these rooms prepared in His Father’s house are to be eternal rooms presumably (or else why is Jesus going to heaven to prepare a place we only use for seven years).

Ok, so if they are then eternal rooms, does it matter whether we stay in them 7 years or no time before we have them for eternity following the 1000 years?

My point is, the seven years is trivial as an argument. Either way, according to the prevailing arguments we’re still essentially doing an about face in mid-air.

At this point, I’ll step somewhat outside of scripture and say I don’t have much problem with these verses. Once we start talking about heaven, and immortal bodies, we don’t have any idea of what this is like. We know in terms of location Jesus comes down, we go up, Jesus reigns with us over the earth. We also know from 1 Thess 4 that how we’re caught up in the clouds with Christ is how we’ll be with him forever, so it doesn’t sound like we change location.

For all I know we can be united with him in heaven and on earth at the same time and these scriptures here appear to contradict because the reality itself is muddled to our thinking. We simply don’t have any frame of reference to understand what life is like post-rapture. And if you think that’s a easy escape for me, consider how many of us understand the balance between free-choice and predestination, yet as Calvinists we accept this and many other paradoxes at face value.

Once we’re taken up, I’m less eager to debate the fine points of heavenly life as proofs of a pre- or post-tribulation rapture. I think that debate ought to be settled on details primarily preceding.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Acts 1

Acts 1

6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. […]

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Note much here, but among the times restricted from us knowing include when Israel is restored. Christ will also return in the same way he left. Specifically, the church is comforted knowing exactly the mode how Christ would return to them when he returned.

Also, we have to be careful to focus just on what this is saying as well as what it is not saying.

Jesus will return in the same manner that the disciples saw him go into heaven. So how they saw him go up is how he will be seen returning, but it doesn’t say anything about who will see him. Certainly they themselves won’t, now being dead. Nor does it say only disciples will see him. The focus is only on his manner of ascending/descending and not on the audience.


Objection 1:

Acts 1:6-11. This refers to Jesus' second coming to earth, which will take place at the end of the Tribulation period.

I agree entirely.

A problem remains that we’ve already seen in 1 Thess 4 that Jesus comes down from heaven. Other verses talk about coming down in and with the clouds. 1 Thess 4 is commonly applied to a pre-tribulation rapture. But here, angels are telling the disciples that the way he comes down is the same way he went up. 1 Thess 4, even if a pre-tribulation rapture, calls this “the coming of the Lord”. And Acts 1 here describes the coming of the Lord as well.

We don’t have scriptures that talk about any “coming” that is not fully a “coming”, where in the first Jesus comes down, stops and turns around. It’s all called the same thing. We’re taking “the coming” in one passage and saying this is a pre-tribulation coming, and another as a post-tribulation.

The logical conclusion is that there is only one coming down. These are one and the same events, and they are just prior to the first resurrection.

RFC: Tribulation Rapture, Revelation 7

Revelation 7

9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. […]

13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”

14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore, “they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.

16 ‘Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat down on them,’ nor any scorching heat.

17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’[c]”

I understand the reasoning that recognizes different groups of people exist/work at different times. If the church, connected with the church of today, is spared Tribulation problems by a pre-Tribulation rapture, here quite clearly you have believers who are specifically said to have come out of the Tribulation, who are referred to in similar ways as “we”, washing our robes in the blood of the lamb, serving God in the temple. The words of comfort, especially wiping away all tears, go back to Isaiah passages, which are as often applied to the church in general as our hope.

And it’s possible “out of” really means escaped somehow, but I don’t think that’s a solid approach since 1) I’d make it only to justify the idea that no saints are in the Tribulation, 2) at this point in the Revelation, those saints may have already endured the Seals in Rev 6, and 3) Revelations will describe more persecution of living people later who won’t worship the beast or accept his name/number.

While not a conclusive argument, I have trouble with the idea that God spares the church – his people -- the Tribulation while having another group of believers who sound no different than we in nobility go through the very same thing. Part of the great joy in the idea of the rapture is knowing the church is spared, but here is the church (at least another part) not spared. And this uncountable number of people is huge, perhaps like the church throughout the ages.


Objection 1:

Rev 7:9-17. Rev 6 ends by asking who is able to stand before the wrath of God? Rev 7 gives the answer: two groups of people. (1) [v. 1-8] 144,000 Jews (12,000 from each tribe) who get saved during the Tribulation, and who proclaim the gospel throughout the world (like Israel was supposed to have done in OT times); and (2) [v. 9-17] people from all over the world (Jew and Gentile alike) who get saved during the Tribulation, largely due to the testimony of the 144,000. Yes, there's a multitude of them! Not only will God be pouring out wrath during this period, He will also be pouring out His sovereign grace, sealing the elect from His wrath, and the Lamb will be their Shepherd (interesting juxtaposition of roles!). None of these are part of the Church, however (just like the OT saints were not part of the Church).

The problem is this is an explanation imposed on the scripture. We’re trying to explain why we’re not seeing the Church here. But you have, at this scene, the 144,000 commissioned from the Jews to go into/throughout the world, who are then going to go out into the world in the subsequent chapters, but the Great Multitude are in heaven, resting and refreshed, having come out of the Tribulation and the world. There’s no indication that they are specifically converts of the 144,000 either, though it is possible that the 144,000 have already been at work prior to their commissioning. This Multitude is from every tribe, tongue and nation and their part is played, where we definitely see a shift in focus to Israel and these new Jewish evangelists.

But how do we prove that the Great Multitude isn’t the Church? We explain that the Church is separate, already taken up, but where do we find that? Is there any indication in the text to distinguish these people from the bulk of the Gentile churches of history and the Old Testament saints?

If so, I can’t find it. Nor again, do we have anything in the Revelation that says the Church has already been raptured at this point.

Is it possible that I’m reading this a little too strictly and that, although we’re introduced to the 144,000 going out, and the Great Multitude having already been delivered, that this is all looking forward to people being saved after this point? Possible, but do I have any textual justification to say that the Great Multitude while appearing delivered in Rev 7 is either continuing to be delivered then and in subsequent chapters, or is delivered only in subsequent chapters? No, I don’t.

To answer the question, who is spared the wrath of God? Those that have already been delivered from the Tribulation and those now going out into the world who are sealed.

So we’re left with an explanation of how Rev 7 works with a pre-tribulation rapture, but little evidence.