|
Rapture, Rupture or
Resurrection
Rapture, Rupture or Resurrection
which is it? This much we know, the Resurrection being a concurrent
even with Christ's Judgment Coming signalled the completion of
redemptive program [Heb 9:28]. Logic therefore dictates that no
resurrection equates to no redemption, at least not in its fullest
sense. Scripture indicates that the end, being the 2nd Coming
or "Parousia" is a concurrent event with the Resurrection,
the Judgment and the Kingdom. It is impossible to have one
apart from the others occurring when one happens they all happen; they
are all constituent elements of the AD70 Parousia of Jesus Christ:
2Tim 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who
will [mello
μελλω
=
is about to] judge the living and the dead at His appearing and
His kingdom.
Paul
affirms that the Resurrection was the Hope of Israel:
Act
23:6
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other
Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and
resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"
Act
24:15
I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that
there will be [mello
μελλω
=
is about to be] a resurrection of the dead, both of the
just and the unjust.
Act
26:6-8
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise
made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly
serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope's sake, King
Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it be thought incredible
by you that God raises [egeirei
εγειρει
(present tense) = is raising] the dead?
Act
28:20
For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak
with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this
chain."
The
promise of Resurrection made "to our fathers" clearly shows
that this was an Old Testament teaching. So where does it come from?
Amongst others, Ezekiel chapter 37 is a key passage. Verse 13 says: "Then
you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My
people, and brought you up from your graves." This was
the net effect of this fulfillment was the New Covenant in Christ the
resurrection to new covenantal life [Rom 6:4-5; Phil 3:10].
There
is much dispute in Christendom today as to the nature of the
resurrection, but this is nothing new even the Pharisees and Sadducees
were at logger-heads over this issue. One thing is certain though,
whether the Pharisees or Sadducees believed in it or not, their
concept of the resurrection was that of a physical nature.
Most of modern Christendom also thinks in terms of "physicality" when it
comes to the resurrection, however, is this scripturally valid? Covenant
eschatology believes not.
A
"literal" understanding does not always necessitate a "physical" end,
for example: Jesus most definitely meant it when he said "you must be
born again" he quite literally meant what he saying, it was
an imperative. But Nicodemus' literalistic and straight-jacketed
thinking totally missed the true reality and full import of what Jesus
was actually saying his head was in the realm of physicality
i.e., he conceived Jesus' literal words as a natural or temporal
event, as opposed to the literal relational reality of
covenantal rebirth [Jn 3:9-12].
Other
leaders of Israel stumbled in their attempt to trip Jesus on this issue
of resurrection as Jesus said: "You are mistaken, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God". As the first century church grew,
resurrection also became an issue, as is seen in the case of the
Thessalonians:
2Thess 2:1-2
Now,
brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or
troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as
though the day of Christ had come.
And in
particular Paul's warning to Timothy about Hymenaeus and Philetus:
2Tim 2:16-18
But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more
ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and
Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth,
saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the
faith of some.
Paul
certainly challenged this false doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus who
were "saying the resurrection is already past" and so turning
some from the faith. His reasoning was quite simple:
If the
1st century church expected Christ's 2nd Coming to be an earth
destroying, time ending, history terminating event, then how was it
possible for some if at all any, to possibly be deceived? IF what
they were looking for was a physical event all someone had to do
was look around and ask "what's changed!?" physically nothing! In
other words, if the resurrection was to be a "literal physical event" it
would be self evident, everything "physically" would be changed a
remade world; people popping up through open graves; no more physical
death. Yet all the living were still present, none had been raptured
away, none of the graves were ruptured, and others were still dying no
tangible resurrection. Again, had things been physically reconstituted
it would have been self evident. However, there is no record of such
things occurring. Strange considering some were saying "the
resurrection is already past" and some others being duped were
believing it.
Obviously, 1st century believers had a concept and belief as to the
nature of the resurrection that is foreign to much of the popular
present-day 'Left Behind' teaching. The first-fruits believers [Jas
1:18] understood that Jesus' kingdom did not come with observation [Lk
17:20]; they came to understand that His kingdom wasn't to be of
this "fleshly" world [Jn 18:36]; in fact Jesus even rejects such
a notion had he wanted THAT it was there for the taking [Jn 6:15].
Indeed, flesh and blood i.e., "the natural order" could not enter it [1Cor
15:50]. The 1st century believers came to realise that Christ's
kingdom was spiritual, covenantal and relationally in nature, and only
entered through the rebirth; a spiritual reality looking not to the
seen but to the unseen [2Cor 4:18].
Based
on Paul's constant warnings against reversion or "going back" to law
observance for righteousness it is quite plausible that the likes of
Hymenaeus and Philetus were actually Judaizers, and not Gnostics as some
postulate. Hymenaeus and Philetus were causing a lot of trouble, and
like much of Paul's opposition these Judaizers were in fact believers "zealous
for the law" [Act 21:20; 15:1, 5, 24]. Now Paul never
challenges Hymenaeus or Philetus' concept or belief as to the nature
of the 2nd Coming, he does however challenge their timing of it.
Had
Hymenaeus and Philetus been correct about the Resurrection being past
[from their perspective], then adherence to the law could have
been seen as a legitimate requirement of faith as the Law was still
operative [Act 21:23-24; Heb 13:10] and the Temple still
standing, though neither post Calvary had any redeeming virtue or
value [Heb 8:13]. The writer of Hebrews declares: "the Holy
Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet
made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing" Heb
9:8. While the Temple stood Israel's redemption was yet incomplete.
Christ's Parousia encompassing the Resurrection, the Judgment and the
Kingdom was the definitive and culminative manifestation and completion
of the long awaited promised deliverance of Israel this was a new
covenantal reality. And this is the crux of the issue had the
resurrection been past then "the
cross of Christ should be made of no effect"
1Cor 1:17 and merely relegated to "add on" status instead of the
age changing covenant renewing event that it was.
Judaizers wanted covenant change without regeneration, they wanted
covenant renewal without losing their religious trappings of
circumcision, law observance, earthly city, temple, priesthood and
sacrificial system etc. These were all vested interests and vestiges of
the "old world" that Jesus prophesied [Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 17, 21]
were coming to and end. Had these Mosaic remnants remained AND the
resurrection being past THEN clearly Paul's eschatological "dying and
rising" in Christ as per Romans 6 was complete, yet this cuts
right across Paul's "being raised" in resurrection life in that
eschatological and transitional generation, something that he writes in
1Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3 as being present tense
realities thus fullness HAD NOT come; such would only be the case with
the Parousia.
What
has been touted as the rapture has been ruptured, for it was in fact the
resurrection, and this all occurred in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem
which was the outward sign of end of the old covenant Mosaic age. And
those ones believing and surviving to the end [Mt 24:13] was this
assurance given:
1Pet 1:5
who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation
ready to be revealed in the last time.
[DISCUSS
HERE]
David G. Embury
© Copyright 2006ΰ
Email:
contact@pantelism.com
|
