Introduction

I promised Ed Stevens my critique on his book and I will do my utmost to be thorough and precise in everything he has written and everything I espouse. I will respond in the order that Ed has presented the arguments in this book, from preface to conclusion. I, from the beginning, admit this is an area where I have a strong stance against a physical rapture. As I have stated to many of my friends in correspondence and debate, a proper understanding of exactly what the first century Christians did expect is important in our understanding of the whole gospel and it's place in our lives toady. This is an important issue, not to salvation, but to the knowledge of our Lord God and His plan for mankind in this world, which human kind will inhabit forever.

The Basis

The first thing that stands out about Ed's book is his title. He readily and honestly admits that a title "Silence Demands a Rapture" makes it seem as if he is making an argument from silence. He readily acknowledges this would be a mistake and has changed the title to "Expectations Demand a First Century Rapture." This only points out the necessity I see in having this debate. As I said above, understanding the first century Christians expectations are key to understanding the completed and fulfilled gospel. This is a serious issue.

Ed says that the change in title came after reflecting on some input from others who said that the previous title gave it's perceived weakness of trying to make an "argument from silence." This is no doubt true. The position I take on this point is that by changing the title, he still did not change the fact that his book is admitting to come from an insecurity in dealing with the silence of post AD 70 Christendom. The need to settle his own questions and the questions of the preterist critics concerning this infamous silence is still the basis of the book and appears (my assumption) to be the basis for his abandoning and "spiritual rapture" position.

Ed claims that the Bible contains Biblical "expectation statements" that need to be answered. The fact that the church is curiously silent about the fulfillment of these things is a puzzling element in Ed's view. He says:

The "expectation statements" do for the rapture view what the "time statements" do for the Preterist view. They pose a dilemma for the credibility of the New Testament writers if they are not fulfilled exactly according to the terms defined in the text."

This stance on the "expectation statements" that Ed is taking I believe is not the right way to view it. What he has just done is come full circle to the argument of the dispensational believer who cannot let go of the "literal fulfillment of prophecy" which they hold according to their own understanding! Christ was notorious for not meeting the expectations of an audience who were out for their own benefit. The fulfillment of expectations cannot be based on the literal writings of a man, who is addressing an audience of an event, which he describes as a "mystery." What was a mystery to them is not clear to us by just translating their expectations literally according to our understanding throughout church history.

I cannot agree with the above statement for another reason. "Expectation statements" are by no means a kin to "time statements" nor do they hold the same weight. God has proved Himself faithful to the exact on His time statements. From the time given for the slavery of the children of Abraham, to the time in captivity at Babylon and then the 70 weeks, God was always on time. Because time is always exact, we can base interpretations of hard to understand prophecy on the event that occurred "on time." The case is not the same for "expectation statements." They cannot be determined by what silence may assume. They must be interpreted by the result of what we know to be true, based on the timing of God and the end result for the whole.

Understanding what the "expectation statements" mean, like prophesy, must be proved by the "time statements" and history. The result of the event and it's impact for you and I, as well as when the expectations were to be fulfilled, is the key to us 21st century Christians understanding the expectations of the Apostles and the first century Christians. It is not the other way around. Expectations can be as hard to understand as prophecy, as this situation proves. We are both preterists, the time statements are unmistakable due to God's track record, which is why Ed and I do not dispute this, however, the expectations of Paul and the first century Christians are not this concrete according to our understanding. This explains the difference in the debates between preterists over the conclusions that the timing leads to. The conclusions are not easily understood.

Further along Ed's preface he mentions again the need to try to understand these "expectation statements" due to the silence that followed.

"The sheer volume of these 'expectation statements' which promise that they would 'know' when the parousia occurred, and 'see' it, and experience it, absolutely stunned me. Then I was reminded again of the fact that not a single post-AD 70 writer, not even Apostle John (who was supposedly still around) or the "apostolic fathers" who supposedly wrote immediately after AD 70, mention the parousia as fulfilled at AD 70.

I must be honest and say that I do not see where this causes an issue. I will address these issues as Ed does along this critique, however I will give you the basics of my thoughts in response to this quote.

The fact that the there is no writings to follow up the "sheer volume of 'expectation statements'" is irrelevant. There are, in fact, writings to follow up the "time statements" of the second coming the church writers of the second century and beyond, which have agreed that the timing of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 were fulfilled in Ad 70. The fact that they would assume some of Revelation would be fulfilled, but not all, states that they acknowledged the judgment of God on Jerusalem based, at least partially, on the "time statements" of Christ. They then ignore the timing of Daniel 12 out of their need to have the expectations fulfilled. This was not based on lack of writing, even though there were none, this was based on false expectations. It is possible for some theologians to be mistaken on the total fulfillment of Revelation was based on the false expectations.

Why were they not asking the same questions as Ed? Why did they take the timing, which so clearly would have proved a total first century fulfillment, and change the truth to fit their false expectations? Wouldn't silence prove the very rapture they agree with? Wouldn't a disappearance of thousands, and possibly millions, prove the rapture? The issue here is not that the lack of post-AD 70 writing proves a literal physical rapture but, in fact, the silence proves the opposite. If there was ever a time to show the truth of God, it would have been out of the mouth of some non-Christian historian, noting the fact that a million inhabitants, who were known as rabble rousers and Jew antagonists, suddenly disappeared after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

The Christians were persecuted and known by their neighbors and the Roman Empire itself. If Ed believes that Nero was the beast, which I assume he does, then Ed should acknowledge that the Christians would have been well known by the Roman Empire due to their rejection of the "mark." They would have been hunted, persecuted, and well known by their neighbors and the government. The disappearance of these individuals, who stood out as not having the "mark of the beast," would have been noticed if they were to have simply vanished. Yet not one historian marks this account, rather, the church writers have said that the Christians fled to the hills of Pella. Silence ultimately demands nothing, however if anything, it refutes a disappearance of known, persecuted, and "unmarked" men.

The second issue I have with the above quote is the fact that it uses weakly the fact that no "apostolic father" wrote concerning the rapture, but the validity of their word is disputed anyway when Ed says, "who was supposedly still around," when referring to the "sighting" of the Apostle John in AD 95-96. If Ed can denounce the validity of the of the "apostolic father's" because it causes difficulty to his claim, and my belief, that Revelation was written before AD 70, then no amount of writing by these men would convince him of a spiritual rapture or literal one. I agree that the testimony of an Apostle John sighting is weak, but we should not appear to reject this "evidence," and then appeal to the same men for more "evidence" when discussing the rapture issue.

The notion that John did not write anything is not disputed. All preterists must agree that no Apostle wrote of the parousia post-AD 70. There is no problem here based exactly on the reason Ed says he is troubled. He acknowledges that "they would 'know' when the parousia occurred, and 'see' it, and experience it." I would ask Ed, then, what is the point to write about it? The majority, nay, all of the text we have in scripture is a reaffirmation of beliefs in the face of adversity. From the gospels to the Revelation, the New Testament was written to encourage, correct, reprove, and instruct. The purpose was to carry the firstfruits of salvation from faith, to realization. If this purpose was complete then there would be no need for more epistles. We simply do not have friendship letters of any kind from that period that are absent from the message of the common faith in future salvation, so to expect those type of letters, post-AD 70 is no proof at all. If they no longer had faith, but "knew," if they no longer had hope, but perfect confidence in their savior, in the fact that those who were asleep in Christ were now dwelling with God, if they could "see" their salvation as being accomplished, they would have no greater response, then to just live as gloriously as we can live in this same truth today. I will go into much greater detail on this further into the discussion.

Ed must also acknowledge the lack of what we call "apostolic authority" post-AD 70. If this were the case, the writings of John would have been mere fallible letters. If he had written, this would be a complication and actually lend credence to the possibility that "apostolic authority" went beyond AD 70. The lack of this authority does not prove a disappearance, however it acknowledges the judgment of the Apostle John who, to the best of our knowledge, remained silent and content on the island of Patmos well into his life post-AD 70. To dispute this evidence only damages Ed's reliance in any "evidence" that may or may not be produced in the future. Rather, the receipt of evidence, or lack of, is irrelevant as to what Paul taught, God revealed, and mankind received.

This brings me to the conclusion of my critique of Ed's preface. His address as to the grammar usage is not a conflict in this portion of his book. I will thoroughly address his grammatical problems when I reach that section of his book. I want to instead finish by responding to what he calls the "three factors."

"These three factors (the grammar, the expectation passages, and the lack of post-AD 70 fulfillment claims) made me realize there is a serious grammatical, contextual and historical problem that we twenty-first century Preterists have not adequately addressed."

Ed is right that there are evident historical and grammatical problems when addressing this issue. Where we disagree is when we discuss who it is that has the problem, the preterist, or the "apostolic fathers." Ed shows his distrust in the church historians who claim that the Apostle John was alive on Patmos in Ad 95-96. Ed would also dispute any church father that claimed any book of the New Testament was written post-AD 70. If it does not fit into the "time statements," then Ed would rightly dispute it. Likewise we cannot allow the lack of evidence by the historians to be a basis for or against. We cannot side with their misunderstood expectations; yet dispute any evidence that does not agree with the "time statements." Ed relies on the "evidence" when it is convenient, and refutes it when it is not. It is not the preterist that has been mistaken for 2000 years as to the fact of an AD 70 return of Christ. It is not the preterist that has been wrong all this time, and is still defending the misunderstood expectations of the first century Jews, even to this day.

The issue shows the lack of understanding of the final result of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will chose to pick sides on this issue, the issue of the final result of the parousia, based on the results for mankind. What occurred to the first century Christians, would be something that would be carried on forever in the "age to come." The benefits of the parousia and the rapture would be experienced by all Christians in the future. If the rapture is literal, what benefit do we reap in this life? If a physical rapture or resurrection was the hope of salvation, what benefit does that give me who will continue on this earth until death? I know Ed would not dispute the advantages we Christians have today apart from the law, in perfect communion with God the Father, but can he adequately define what purpose there is to life in the here and now, if it is the hereafter that was the hope and focus of Paul and the first century Christians? Can he adequately describe what our benefit is, truly, if the expectation of the first century were in a disappearance? If the rewards that we are to be experiencing are so great, why did they need to be swept away from it?

The end result and expectation of Paul and the first century Christians was life with God, "whether awake or asleep." The Bible, in Revelation 21 and yes, even First Thessalonians 4, will be shown to declare that the hope of salvation was life with God. The grammar Paul used in this powerful passage itself, so misunderstood and wrongly interpreted proves that "God with man" is the end result of the "hope of salvation." The reason this is not understood is due to the misunderstanding of the curse, cross and coming. The curse was not physical death, the cross did not by itself bring life, and the coming was not to help the firstfruits of salvation escape a world that God would be leaving to two-thousand years worth of believers as their "age to come." God was not helping the first fruits escape their inheritance.

Response to Section 1: The Expectations and the Silence

1. What Is Suggested

In the first section of the book, Ed again brings the impact of his argument back to a lack of writing concerning this event. I do agree that this book will contain plenty of positions brought to bear by the "expectation passages" more so than the fact there is a simple lack of evidence. I concede to Ed that he simply is giving his point of view on these passages from a scriptural interpretation standpoint that fits within Preterism. What has caused Ed alarm and concern over the whole issue, what has brought him to question his former position, however, is still the issue of silence. It is the silence, which appears to support a rapture claim, which causes Ed to abandon a "spiritual rapture" view. Whether or not the meat of his argument is in pointing out the lack of evidence, one cannot dispute that his method of interpreting the first century scriptures is grounded in the idea that this silence is so puzzling and supports the seemingly obvious "literal rapture" theory that the modern dispensational church holds to. His bias is that because of the puzzling silence, it is only obvious that the "expectation passages" are affirming to the believers a "literal rapture," just as the church has been teaching for almost 1900 years.

Ed again explains his questioning in the following quote.

"I noticed again the doctrinal confusion, disorganization of leadership, and the extreme scarcity of written material by any of the pre-AD 70 leadership immediately after AD 70, at a time when there should have been clarity and confidence of the fulfillments that had just occurred."

"How could it be that some of the apostles and their traveling companions lived through the events of AD 70 without recognizing the significance of it and saying something about it afterwards? This is the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological study that I am aware of. All of church history and its interpretation of Bible prophecy is deeply affected by this silence."

Ed has again beautifully showed his ability to side with the dispensational in their argument against any rapture at all! They first believe that scripture was written after AD 70. If some believe that it was all written before, it is clear to them that most of the Apostles were probably dead, as church history records, and that the Apostle John was simply imprisoned until he died. Why does Ed have such a hard time with these explanations? Church history records that Peter, James and Paul were killed during the reign of Nero. The only other popular Biblical authors are John and Luke. I admit ignorance in what may have happened to Luke, however Johns imprisonment easily explains his lack of writings considering the fact that there was no more need to warn, sustain, and instruct, nor was there the authority to do so.

Ed's statement also answers itself when he says, "at a time when there should have been clarity and confidence of the fulfillments that had just occurred." How does Ed know that there was no clarity or confidence after AD 70? He admits there are no writings saying so one way or the other! If the Christian world were to receive the rest of God from their labors, if they were going to inherit the fruits of their toil, would not they be in perfect confidence when they received it? Would they not have had perfect clarity after the whole world had witnessed the march on and destruction of Jerusalem? They had just received salvation from the persecution of the Judaizers. They had just received confirmation that every word their Lord had spoken was true and accurate, and it happened right before their eyes! Ed has no evidence that they were not clear or confident.

Silence in this situation would actually point to the opposite. The purposes and reasons for writing scripture had vanished when the Romans marched to and on Jerusalem. Think about the fact that the Jews had been pestering and rebelling against the Romans for too many years. They were a thorn in the Emperor's side for so many years, in fact, that the Roman Emperor himself went to Jerusalem first hand. I would bet that on the way, they did not leave a single Judaizing synagogue alone. The Romans were marching from Italy to their little province of Judea to crush a rebellion that was faith and race based. Would any person, who has any knowledge of warfare or history, dispute that probably not a single synagogue was left unmolested along the way? Pure vindication and rest had come to the Christian, throughout the Roman world, when God judged the Jews in AD 70 for the blood of the martyrs, prophets, and Christ Himself. Pure confidence and clarity came to the Christian in AD 70, when the words of his Messiah were confirmed in that time. When the Jew was judged as the Ishmael and the Christian, elect of the Jew and grafted in Gentile, were proven the true "sons of Abraham" then there was perfect clarity and perfect confidence. There was no need to write anything.

The next question Ed asks is why the Christians never wrote about "the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological study." He correctly states that, "all of church history and its interpretation of Bible prophecy is deeply affected by this silence." What is interesting is that these questions never change the fact that history and the world has been left in silence after "the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological study" has just taken place! This is a more critical question that needs to be answered which Ed's view does not adequately address. We are living in what was called the "age to come." Obviously it was God's will to leave us with pure silence after the events of AD 70. Neither literal rapture or complete rest, clarity, and confidence will change the fact of silence. So what is this "age to come" that the world inherited and why was a rapture significant to it? Why did God not just simply end the world in AD 70 if the "hope of salvation" was found in a literal rapture? If that was the hope, then what hope have we? Ed's view creates the same "what hope is there now" scenario for the preterist that every dispensational asks in any debate. Rather than understanding a "hope of salvation" that the first century Christians had that relates to their inheritance of an "age to come," he has diminished their true hope and minimized the real "hope of salvation" by siding with the irresponsible hermeneutics of a group of Christians who will not be satisfied until God creates their version of Armageddon which their many science fiction books proclaim as doctrine! The fact is all of church history and the "age to come" has been left in silence. This silence was God's will and we would be better served understanding the points of view of what the Christians actually received "on that day" and what we were left with "beyond the end times" instead of trying to focus on a silence that does nothing more than leave speculative questions for conspirator people. The silence is answered in the true "hope of salvation" that we can and should, as preterists, realize. This "hope of salvation" that the first century Christians had brought pure freedom, perfect clarity, relief from persecution, perfect confidence, and a perfected conscience.

2. Why They Failed to Document It

The problem I have with this section is it forces me to repeat my opinions on the matter of silence that I have already addressed. I do not want to beat a dead horse with why there was silence and lack of documentation because that will be dealt with in the exegetical portion as well. However, the question of this section specifically concerns the silence as a reason for concern. The problem of silence seems to stump many Christians, including preterists and so the logical reasons for silence without it demanding a literal rapture must be stated and emphasized.

"This question [How could they fail to document it?] assumes the pre-AD 70 Church understood that the eschatological events were definitely supposed to take place in their lifetime, and they would be of such a nature that they could be seen and experienced by the true Christians who were 'spiritually discerning' enough to know what happened."

Ed is absolutely correct in his assumption that "they would be of such a nature that they could be seen and experienced by the true Christians..." This is all he need say though concerning who would know. The true Christian would be "spiritually discerning enough to know" so to add that as a qualifier for those who would understand it is unnecessary. This was the point of the epistles and the preaching of the apostles. They were to prepare the church for what was to happen. The church needed to have it's hearts and minds prepared and therefore the apostles taught them both in person and through epistles. Every "true" Christian would be "spiritually discerning enough."

Would Christ return if those who were to be the elect, the "firstfruits of salvation" were not prepared to meet their husband? Would Christ return if the number He had set apart for salvation were not completed and made ready?

"2Co 11:2 - I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband."

The idea here clearly is that Paul's mission was to present the Bride as acceptable, ready, and pure. Paul did not only take this mission upon himself, but he also put this task upon Timothy who also was to keep the commandment "without spot or blame until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The commandment Timothy received was to keep the church and instruct them. He was to preach the truth and to avoid false doctrines. If these commands could not be kept, why did Paul give them to Timothy? In Ephesians Paul also speaks of the mission in similar terms.

"Eph 4:11 It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

The question here is how would they attain the "whole measure of the fullness of Christ." This is what I believe occurred at the parousia. They reached unity in the faith, they had full knowledge of the Son of God and they attained the whole measure. If they had not attained, there would still be apostles. They were appointed "until" according to Ephesians. If apostles no longer exist, who were led into all truth, who were appointed according to this mission Paul explains, then the mission has been accomplished at the time apostles were no longer needed. This occurred at Ad 70. The church was led into all knowledge. This is also what Paul says would happen when Christ returns. When the "perfect comes" there would be a change, an experience, a knowledge, an understanding that took place.

"1 Cor 13:12 For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.

This statement by Paul is either true or it isn't. Paul, and every Christian who would have lived through this event, must have known as they were "fully known." This is not hope or faith; this means they had knowledge and utter confidence. It is not easily understood what this statement means. This is clearly one of Paul's expectation statements however he does not make it clear what the result of being "face to face" means. The clue to this is that he would "know." Paul's reliance of the fact that he would "know" is a clue to what he really expects. Some people see this as a proof text that Paul would be "face to face" with God Himself. This cannot make sense in light of the fact Paul mentions that at that present time, he sees "indistinctly, as in a mirror." Paul is not saying he will see the literal face of God at the parousia in the future any more than he is saying he is looking into a literal mirror in the present. The point here is knowledge, and at that point, there would be no reflections of who God is, no mystery to what he sees and knows, he would see and know as if face to face with God Himself. He would know God as God knows him. This is the expectation Paul had, to understand it all completely, and not "in part."

 

"Our critics bring this problem into sharp focus when they ask: 'How could pre-AD 70 saints who had consistently been taught that fulfillments would happen in their lifetime and would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem, suddenly after AD 70 forget all about it and go their merry way as if nothing significant happened? Why don't we either hear bitter complaints about the non-occurrence, or enthusiastic claims of fulfillment? Ho-hum complacency after such significant events is incomprehensible.'"

I really find it funny that this question is raised at all, even by a dispensational, considering the fact they believe that scripture had been written beyond AD 70 and yet the Bible itself does not record any of this most significant event in Jewish or Church history. The Bible does not even record the Neronian persecutions, which all but wiped out the remaining apostles. It is a silly question by men who assume authorship of New Testament text post AD 70, one that could go in circles, and has, for years.

"How could pre-AD 70 Christians who were so intensely longing for His return, suffering in the tribulation and crying 'How long, O Lord' and 'Marana-tha' (Oh Lord, come!) see their vindication and relief come in AD 70, and then walk away in silence? That is not a very good way to 'give an answer' to the Jewish mockers who were already challenging them to produce the fulfillment. If they didn't recognize the fulfillments, then an embarrassed silence would have been their expected response."

This last statement is impossible in the light of the scripture I produced. One thing that cannot be disputed is that whether there was a literal rapture or a spiritual one, confusion, misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge would not result for those who awaited the parousia. Lack of knowledge is not a reason for silence no matter who is correct in this debate. The question for silence is again answered in the knowledge itself. They did "see their vindication and relief come" and therefore had a perfect understanding. There was no more need for the apostles to write about it, to instruct about it, to declare it, because Paul himself declared it was going to be perfectly understood.

Silence did not answer nor leave unanswered Jewish objections to the validity of Christianity. I am amazed a preterist would raise this objection in light of the known vindication they and Christ Himself received in the act of AD 70 itself. Who was left to question the Christian? Was the priesthood that was destroyed in the temple left to raise objections against Christianity and persecute the Christians? Were the Jews, who now suffered the wrath of Rome throughout the empire and witnessed the destruction of their law, raising objections to Christianity? The events of AD 70, Christ alone vindicated the Christians. Christ answered all objections in the definitive when He came and destroyed the temple like He said He would. When the Christian was left standing as the true "sons of Abraham" and the Jew was persecuted by Rome and taken captive, that was all the answer Christianity needed.

The silence of post-AD 70 Christendom was a natural result of pure freedom, perfect clarity, relief from persecution, perfect confidence, and a perfected conscience. The silence of post-AD 70 Christendom is a natural result of the mission of the Church leaders being accomplished when the Church reached their fullness in Christ. The silence of post-AD 70 Christendom is a natural result of the apostolic authority that was once held by the Apostle John no longer being applicable or needed. We have no record at all of normal letters from any of the apostles to the churches. All epistles were written in an effort to accomplish the mission as declared in Ephesians, as given to Timothy and as handed down to the disciples from our Lord. It is not disputed that this mission was accomplished. If we did not have non-instructive, uninspired regular celebratory letters pre-AD 70 between Christians or the apostles, why is it so surprising that none exist afterwards?

"Of course this presupposes that the parousia, resurrection and judgment were of such a visible and historical nature that they could not be missed by the true Christians."

This is a perfectly true statement. The falsehood found within this statement is the assumption that silence means it was missed by the "true Christians." I have showed why silence does not determine the result one way or the other. Silence can confirm my belief in a spiritual rapture as easy as it forces Ed to question one. In this debate it is clear that silence is being used to determine the means of fulfillment of the "expectation passages" by Ed. He has laid his case to interpret the "expectation passages" in a literal way due to the silence. Silence is still ultimately the reason Ed has for questioning his past held beliefs of a spiritual rapture. Silence is ultimately what demands Ed to look at the "expectation passages in a literal way. Silence, in Ed's view, does demand the literal rapture.

3. What They Expected to "See"

It should be already obvious to the reader in this debate that what Ed will produce is the literal fulfillment idea for the "expectation statements" of what the apostles and first century Christians expected to see, and I will produce an idea of spiritual fulfillment. His questioning of the silence brings about Ed's literal approach. He admits to holding a spiritual view of these events until he could not answer the silence question. I have shown that silence is, by no means, a problem in my interpretation and so I will base my interpretations on what it is they, and we who are living in that "age to come" have received. I will interpret these passages based on the purpose and result of the gospel itself as understood through a preterist interpretation. I will not take the literal reading of these passages any more than I will take the literal reading of prophecy to determine the fulfillment. Like in proving the truth of preterism itself, I will take historical events and results based on timing and gospel implications to show what it was that the first century Christians really expected. I will not take the fulfillment of an even Paul describes as a "mystery" (1 Cor 15:51) and interpret it literally. A grammatical, historical and big picture understanding of the gospel is required to unlock the "mystery" which was unlocked completely for the true Christian in AD 70.

"Did these Christians really have expectations of a real, historical, visible relief and reward that they knew they would absolutely see and experience without fail at the parousia."

The answer is an emphatic "YES!" The answer is also that they received such a visible relief and reward in a physical and spiritual fulfillment. They physically received relief from the persecution of Judaism and spiritually received the reward of eternal life. They were physically able to rest from the fear of persecution from the Jew who continually stoned them and brought them before tribunals. They physically received relief from the Roman who had focused his attention on the Jew and quelling their rebellion and turned their anger away from the Christian, allowing Christianity to grow to incalculable numbers after AD 70. They spiritually received rest from their conscience, which was unable to be perfected before AD 70 (Heb 9:9-10, 10:1-14). They spiritually received rest from the temptation to return to Judaism. This was the biggest struggle for a Christian. A very pervasive theme of most of the epistles was to help them remain confident and strong in the face of Judaizers who were trying to convert the Gentile to Judaism and bring the Jew into apostasy. They received rest from this spiritual battle.

These are just a few of the things that the parousia brought, which a literal rapture minimizes. We are not in their place, so to ask questions which appear to say that without literal disappearance and that without literal and visual "face to face" with the Messiah Himself, they could not have rest, is to minimize the results of the parousia itself, to minimize the results of the gospel, and to minimize the struggle they dealt with. It also strips us of the important understanding of the gospel and what it does for us today. If a literal rapture was the "hope of salvation," then we are in a world without hope.

I will cover the expectation points Ed brings up and deal with some of them more thoroughly than others. Some we already agree upon and do not require debate.

A. Expectation 1

"Some of them would definitely live to see and experience the big three events...They didn't all die in the persecution."

This expectation is agreed upon and the Bible itself shows a small debate with Peter, John, and Christ discussing the issue of John possibly living through it and Peter dying before it. Since the truth of the Preterism is not at debate here, but the conclusions of Preterism are, I will not address the first expectation because it is agreed.

B. Expectation 2

"They were 'eagerly waiting' and longing for His return...Was that longing fulfilled? Could they keep silent about it after pumped up so before hand?"

(1) Text 1

The proof text for this expectation and the reasons for the questions I will address in order. 1 Cor 16:22 is only significant for it's use of "Marana-tha."

(2) Text 2

"Philippians 3:20 but our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Our citizenship was in a place called the "heavenly Jerusalem" which came out from heaven down to earth. It is in the New Heavens and New Earth. Hebrews describes this place of our citizenship thoroughly and Revelation also does so prophetically. It is a citizenship that all believers belong to, both past and present, and one that describes our place in covenant with God, not our literal place in relation to time and space. Though heaven, life after death, exists, the place of our citizenship is the "New Jerusalem." The New Jerusalem had not "come down" to man yet in Paul's day. This is what AD 70 was bringing and this was his hope. The covenant of death was to be done away with; it was vanishing. The covenant of righteousness was coming down to man at the end of the age. This was the "age to come;" the age of the New Covenant. The result of the New Covenant is the literal meaning of Emmanuel, "God with us [man]."

"1 Thess 5:9 "For God did not appoint us to wrath but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up as you are already doing."

The conclusion of the context of the hope of the Christian is summed up in verse 10. The culmination of the hope of the Christian was nothing other than a relationship with the Almighty God of heaven and earth: to be “saved” from the present body and to be present with the Lord. However, the result of this hope was God dwelling with man. Whether he was “awake or asleep” man would forever be in relationship with “Abba Father.” The old order would pass away and the new order, which was the Edenic relationship, had been restored. The writer of Hebrews [I emphatically believe to be Paul] expresses this coming of the New Covenant, or God with man, when he addresses the coming of the "heavenly Jerusalem."

"Heb 9:11 Now the Messiah has appeared, high priest of the good things that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation)…

Paul is expressing the hope of a perfect tabernacle that was replacing the imperfect tabernacle which was of the worldly creation; the temple. Daniel was the first to link the "shattering" [RSV] of the "holy people" to the judgment, rapture/resurrection (Daniel 12). Christ again linked the destruction of the temple to the judgment Matthew 23 and to the rapture/resurrection in Matthew 24. The Revelation 19 links the judgment of the harlot Babylon to the time of vengeance taken against the slayer of the saints, which Christ clearly declared against first century Jerusalem.

With these undeniable links to the visible judgment of Jerusalem which would culminate in the destruction of their temple, it is easy to see that this time of judgment would bring about the coming of the "perfect tabernacle" at this same time. This was the writer of Hebrews hope, Paul's hope, and the hope he taught in his epistles.

"Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old and what is old and aging is about to disappear."

It is easy to see how this passage perfectly links the hope of the "perfect that was coming; "which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises," with the establishment of the new covenant; "when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," with the end of the offices in AD 70 that took away apostolic authority and the coming of the perfect knowledge and clarity Paul expected; "And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me," and finally, with the destruction of the law which would be the visible sign that all was consummated; "He has declared that the first is old and what is old and aging is about to disappear."

This vanishing of the old and establishment of the new is by no means a new theme in Paul's writing. He was assured that the coming covenant of righteousness was so glorious, that what the people experienced at Mount Sinai in Exodus was nothing in comparison to it. The glory of the New Covenant was a thing not to be taken lightly, nor is it right for us to minimize its coming. We have no concept of how deeply enslaved the people were by the persecution of Judaism and its law. The persecution from the Judaizers and the judgments of the law were all things that had to be done away with in order that the conscience of the believer be perfected once and for all. This was occurring at that time and the relief of such deliverance cannot and must not be minimized or understated. It is the freedom even Christianity today longs for and cannot find because we have hid it in a hierarchical system of man through priest, man through altar calls, man through guilt to get to God. However, God had done away with any hindrance or mediator other than Christ once and for all in AD 70 and He established a New Covenant, a tabernacle not of this creation, a city who's maker s God, a covenant of righteousness whose glory surpasses that of the covenant of death so much so, that Mount Sinai doesn't even rate to be called glorious anymore. This cannot be minimized!

"2 Cor 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look directly at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a affliction is producing for us an absolutely incomparable fading glory, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness overflows with even more glory. 10 In fact, what had been glorious is not glorious in this case because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was fading away was glorious, what endures will be more glorious…"

Second Corinthians provides us with a beautiful link to exactly what Hebrews 8 is speaking of. The coming "ministry of righteousness" would be so glorious that the "ministry of death" could not even compare. To think that this is speaking alone of its coming would be a mistake. Though the events of AD 70 were visibly terrifying, and though I do believe that the shikinah glory of God was visibly seen over the city, it was the ministry that is being compared and the effects of Moses' face afterwards, which are being compared. This may be used as a proof text to say that the individual glorified bodies of believers would have more glory that the face of Moses. This would be a grave mistake since the thing here that has glory has nothing to do with personal glorification, but it is the ministry, which has the glory. It was the covenant, which would be glorious. Even more so than all the physical, visible evidences of glory from the ministry of death, the ministry of righteousness would not even allow Moses' personal, physical glorification to compare to it!

Read Hebrews again. It was the physical covenant, which could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper, which was of this creation and imperfect, which was enacted on promises that do not compare to the promises of the new covenant, which was vanishing (Heb 8:1-13, 9:1-14, 10:1-14). This was the hope, this was the point, and this is what is minimized if a literal rapture is true. A literal disappearance is not what they waited for. Individual glorification was not the result of the glorification of the ministry of righteousness. It was glorious because it perfected, it was glorious because righteousness is a much more perfect promise than death. Eternal life is a much better hope than the promise of death.

It is also a promise that they would be made perfect. If the downfall of the old covenant was that its external practices could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper, and the promise of the new covenant was better because it gave what the old covenant could not give, then perfection of the conscience of the worshipper was a key promise of the new. Paul describes being made perfect in Hebrews 11. He says it would not happen apart from the patriarchs of the faith. They were not made perfect before Paul was. They would all be made perfect in AD 70. Paul links this being "made perfect" with the coming of the new covenant and the arriving at the promise of the "heavenly Jerusalem."

"Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, without having received the promises, but they saw them from a distance, greeted them, and confessed that they were foreigners and temporary residents in the earth. 14 Now those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been remembering the land they came from, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But they now aspire to a better land, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them... 39 All these were approved through their faith, but they did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, so they would not be made perfect without us."

What was better that they were receiving was already shown in Hebrews 8. However the writer of Hebrews goes into his description of the homeland that they were citizens of, the homeland he describes Abraham as waiting for but not receiving. It is in direct relation to the citizenship of the believer in the text that Ed provides in Philippians 3:20. It was a city that would not be inherited until all the firstfruits were ready. It was an inheritance of a "city," a "heavenly land," a perfection that would not be attained without the whole batch. Hebrews 12 describes this very "city" and its glory.

"Heb 12:18 For you have not come to what might be touched, to a blazing fire, to darkness, to gloom, and storm, 19 to the blast of a trumpet, and the sound of words. (Those who heard it begged that not another word be spoken to them, 20 for they could not bear what was commanded: And if even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned! 21 And the appearance was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am terrified and trembling). 22 Instead, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God (the heavenly Jerusalem), to myriads of angels in festive gathering, 23 to the assembly of the first born whose names have been written in heaven, to God who is the judge of all, to the spirits of righteous people made perfect, 24 to Jesus (mediator of a New Covenant), and to the sprinkled blood, which says better things than the blood of Abel…26 His voice shook the earth at that time, but now he has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also heaven. 27 Now this expression, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of what can be shaken, that is, created things, so that what cannot be shaken will remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom, which cannot be shaken, let us hold onto grace. By it, we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and awe; 29 For our God is a consuming fire."

The hope of the Christian was a New Covenant, a "house not made with hands" a "kingdom which cannot be shaken" a "better land," a "ministry of righteousness." Paul was expecting and teaching that they would receive the new covenant at the second coming of Christ. The covenant of death would be taken away once for all. Only upon this removal was the way to life opened for all (Cor 15:54-56, Heb 9:8-11).

(3) Text 3

Hebrews 9:28 says they were eagerly awaiting for Him to appear a second time for salvation and not to deal with sin. Sin had already been dealt with. Christ had lived a sinless life and proved He alone held power over the grave. What was remaining was for Christ to apply this power to the believers who were eagerly awaiting salvation. As long as the law still existed, then sin still had power, and death still held its sting. These did not go away until Ad 70, and until the resurrection. Dealing with this issue, the fear and sting of death, was the primary concern of the Thessalonians in First Thessalonians 4.

(4) Text 4

"Jude 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life."

The knowledge that Paul spoke about in First Corinthians 13, the knowledge of eternal life and receiving that eternal life, the ministry of righteousness, is specifically mentioned here as the mercy they were expecting. Jude clearly notes his expectation of mercy to be fulfilled with receiving eternal life. Eternal life is something that would be received without dying first or being raptured. The fear of no life after death was very troublesome to the Thessalonians and they were encouraged to take hope in the fact that those who had fallen asleep would indeed rise to be with God at His parousia.

"1 Thess 4:13 We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest who have no HOPE. 14 Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus."

This verse gives us the entire context of the "hope of salvation." These verses are the beginning of the rapture/resurrection passage that is at the heart of this debate. Here Paul is responding to a worry of the Thessalonians that their brethren who have fallen asleep before the parousia would not rise. He was putting to rest their worry that the dead in Christ had somehow perished for not living until the parousia occurred. This may be because of the passage in Daniel that blesses the man who comes to the 1335 days, or possibly the passage, which says, "he who endures to the end shall be saved." Either way, they had a fear of hopelessness concerning those who had dies before the parousia. Paul was addressing this fear.

He did not want them to grieve like those who had "no hope." They did have hope and all their saved brethren who had died in Christ had this same hope. Because of their "hope of salvation," they need not grieve. Their hope would not disappoint. Paul specifically addresses their hope in a statement in verse 14. God would come down so that those who had fallen asleep in Him would be "with Him." Christ was going to "receive them unto himself" when He returned.

"John 13:36 Simon Peter said to Him, 'Lord, where are You going?' Jesus answered him, 'Where I am going you cannot follow Me now, but you shall follow Me afterward.' 37 Peter said to Him, 'Lord, why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for Your sake.' 38 Jesus answered him, "Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times. 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.'"

This was the answer given to Peter when he wanted to follow Christ and declared he would follow Him, even to death. Christ gave Peter His opportunity to make good on his pledge to the Lord, and when Peter died, he, like those in First Thessalonians and Daniel also, would await the return of Christ, which is described in this First Thessalonians passage, before they would "rise" to be with God.

I must address a misunderstanding to verse 14 of First Thessalonians before I go any farther. The dispensational takes verse 14 and does some serious twisting to what is being said here. The idea is that since Christ rose, the dead in Him will also rise. Paul says that in the same way that Christ rose from the dead, so God will bring the dead to be with Him when at the return. The church has taught that this says, "since Christ's physical body rose, so will the physical bodies of the dead rise. God will bring with Him the spirits of the dead, they will reenter the physical body and then they will rise."

Here Paul is not saying that the dead will come down with God to reenter their physical bodies. This cannot be so because Paul himself teaches that the dead are not with God until the resurrection! There are no spirit bodies to come down with Him. They are still dead until He raises them. However Paul is saying that just like Christ rose to be with God, when God comes, the dead in Christ will also go to be with Him. It is exactly what Christ told Peter and what Paul reaffirms in verses 15-16.

"1 Thess 4:15 For we say this to you by a revelation from the Lord. We who are still alive at the Lords coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

When they witnessed this "visible" return in the clouds of heaven at AD 70, just as Christ had decreed, as the whole world was witness to the judgment of God on Jerusalem, the Thessalonians were then fully knowledgeable and assured that their dead loved ones were with God at that time. They had perfect peace that the God they believed was true, for He had vindicated them exactly as and when He had said He would. The witness of the Apostle Paul had proven to be true, and the unrest in their minds and souls concerning those who had fallen asleep before had vanished. They had clarity, peace, and rest in their perfected consciences and assurance of their presently held eternal life. Their longing for the loved ones was fulfilled.

(5) Text 5

"1 Thess 1:10 and wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

This passage also goes to the heart of the debate. How was it that they received this deliverance? Was this deliverance the same as what the rapture/resurrection would be? I do not believe that the deliverance from the wrath is the same as the event known as the rapture/resurrection. I believe this is confirmed in Daniel 12 and Matthew 24. Daniel says that "your people" would be delivered during the tribulation such as the world had never known.

"Dan 12:1 At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. "

This is not saying that the Christians did not live in a time of tribulation or a time of trouble. The time that Christ declared was "the beginning of sorrows" or the "birth pains" was occurring all throughout the empire from the beginning of persecution of the church by the Judaizers through the Roman persecution under Nero. No matter what tradition says, there is no set 7 year time period, there is only a set 3 1/2 year period of a "time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time." This time of "wrath" is what the Christians would be delivered from, according to Daniel.

When a proper reading of Matthew and Daniel are considered, it is impossible that this deliverance in Daniel 12:1 is the rapture. The rapture would occur only after the resurrection, and the resurrection would not occur until the "end of the days." These days are the 3 1/2 years of wrath (Daniel 12:6-13), the 42 months of the "time of vengeance" in which the gentiles would trample the city (Luke 21:20-24, Rev 11:2). These are the days that the Christians would be delivered from but this is not the rapture. Matthew 24 gives us a good description of this event that I call the "deliverance of Daniel 12."

"Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man."

This is a perfect picture of the time of wrath. If we all recall the time of Noah, he had to build an ark, he had to obey the Lord upon entering it. He did all this after suffering the scoffing of those who did not believe there would be a flood. They were mocked and persecuted for building a boat in the middle of dry land, big enough to house 2 of every type of creature and even 7 of some others, not to mention his family. Noah had to specifically obey and follow the instructions of the Lord, according to his faith, in order to be saved from the "wrath" of God on that wicked generation. Christ said that the second coming would be in the same way. In other words, the Christians would have to obey, in faith, their Lord and they would have to follow the signs laid down and flee the "wrath to come." They would be witnesses to the destruction of Jerusalem from afar, after they obeyed the Lord and fled the city.

"Matt 24:15 So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 17 let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 19 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

Christ was affirming Daniel 12 and was providing their deliverance in the same means as Noah, by their obedience in faith to the warnings of Christ. This is why the warnings were so important. I would not even limit the fleeing to Jerusalem alone. If I were a Christians and the hand of God in the form of the Roman Empire was moving out against the Jew and Judaism, in order to crush it, I would not be found anywhere near a synagogue where I could be mistaken as a Jew myself. This is a part of our understanding of what was really going on. In the crusades, the Jews and Muslims were tormented and murdered all the way from the British Isles to Jerusalem. The empire of Constantinople suffered greatly by the pillaging and murder of the crusaders. Likewise, I have to believe that the persecution of Judaism, from the just punishment of God, was being felt all throughout the empire. Any Christian anywhere, would have been wise to heed the warning to flee to the hills.

Christ further likens the time of Noah when specifically referring to the taking and leaving of individuals during that time. If it was the family of Noah that is considered taken, it is still not the same type of "taken" as happened to Elijah. If it was the Christian who was to be taken, like Noah, then the Christian would be delivered like Noah, by faith in obedience to the Lord when they fled to the hills. However, a better reading of this entire passage shows it is the wicked who were being taken. When Christ compares it to Noah, he said the flood "took them" when referring to the wicked. So like in the days of Noah, it would be the wicked who were taken by the wrath of God and the destruction that the Romans would bring upon the Jews, specifically in Jerusalem, but also throughout the empire.

"Matt 24:39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

If it was not as it was in the days of Noah, and God had planned to rapture the Christians as the form of deliverance from the "wrath to come," then there would be no need for them to "watch" or "flee." However, Christ declares it would be like in the days of Noah. Christ specifically addresses the sweeping away of the wicked in Noah's day when discussing those who would be "taken." Matthew 24 is not a proof of a literal rapture nor can it be used to prove that a rapture would be the means by which the Christians were delivered from wrath.

Daniel 12 seals up the difference between the rapture/resurrection and the time of deliverance from the "time of trouble" and "the wrath to come." It is clear that the deliverance would occur before the "time of trouble "and before the "wrath to come." However, Daniel 12 makes it clear that the resurrection would not occur until those days were over. Daniel himself was told to go his way and that he would rise "at the end of the days."

"Daniel 12:6 And I said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, 'How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?' 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven; and I heard him swear by him who lives for ever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished... 12 Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. 13 But go your way till the end; and you shall rest, and shall rise to your allotted place at the end of the days."

If the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs before the rapture of the living, then the rapture took place after the deliverance of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24. This means that there was no deliverance by disappearance that was being hoped for by the Christians in Thessalonica or anywhere else in Christendom, because deliverance by disappearance was not taught. The deliverance from wrath which is in First Thessalonians 1:10 that was expected was not a rapture. The rapture was an event that is was a mystery and was linked to the resurrection, where the living are clothed in incorruption.

(1) Text 6:

a. Understanding the Creation

 

"Rom 8:18-25 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility-not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it-in the hope 21 that creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. 23 And not only that, but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the firstfruits-we also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Now in this hope we were saved, yet hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees. 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with patience."

There is so much happening in this passage it will by far be the biggest section in this response. The parallels and misunderstandings of this passage are astounding and even the preterist gets caught up in them. I see the parallels when reading this passage, others see the literal text and think this is a perfect proof of individual glorification of the "body" at the rapture/resurrection. However, like all prophecy must be understood through other parallel text and similar fulfillments in past history, so this passage cannot stand alone to the literal reader. Romans 8 must be interpreted by other scripture. Once seen in the light of other parallel passages, the message of their expectation should be clear.

First Paul claims that his sufferings will not even be comparable to the glory, which will be revealed to them. I have already addressed the glory of the "ministry of righteousness" that was to be revealed would surpass the glory of the "ministry of death." I have already described how this ministry of righteousness and being made perfect is considered side by side with receiving the promise of perfection and the inheritance of the "heavenly Jerusalem." The glory of this "heavenly Jerusalem," of the "ministry of righteousness" is what would be revealed to them at the parousia.

The heavenly Jerusalem was not a place they would go to, but a place that would come down from heaven when God would dwell with man. Revelation 21 does a beautiful job of painting a prophetic picture of our covenant with Him when Revelation 21 was revealed to John. The idea of this "city" is that it is the inheritance Abraham was waiting for, it is the citizenship that he belonged to. The result of the parousia would be this city, coming down from out of heaven to be with man. This is what was glorious. It was not a physical manifestation, it was not a covenant that was "of this creation," nor was it a city that could "be touched." It is a kingdom here on this earth. It is a spiritual kingdom that Christ taught about. It is a kingdom that does not require a literal rapture to attain it and therefore, did not have a literal rapture facilitate its coming.

Paul declares that the "creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be revealed." This is a parallel to Galatians and Ephesians where Paul discusses the true sons of Abraham and heirs to the throne are those who are under faith. Why would creation eagerly await the revelation of the true heirs of Abraham? Why would creation be set free "into the glorious freedom of God's children?" How did the literal creation receive this freedom?

"Eph 2:10 For we are His creation-created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them."

This creation is not talking about the days of creation in Genesis; the planet, stars, animals, and humans. This creation is that which was planted in the Middle East on the west side of the Jordan River. This creation is the one who received the law on Mount Sinai so that God might "plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth." This creation is the one that was being made new by having the "former things" pass away. This creation was the elect, covenant children of God, from the time of Abraham until the time of Paul. And this creation longed for the freedom of God's children. A freedom, which was held by faith, believed in, hoped for, but was not attained (Rom 8:24-25, Phil 3:12-14).

"Isaiah 51:15-16 But I am the Lord your God, who divided the sea whose waves roared- The Lord of hosts is His name.  And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundation of the earth, and say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’”

It is entirely possible that the creation Paul spoke about was the creation of the people of God. When He gave the Israelites His laws, He set apart for Himself a people. His elect, His remnant, have always been people of faith, and those of faith, from the time the Law was given, have been in bondage to the law. Freedom from that law was the freedom that all creation groaned for and anxiously awaited.

It is not coincidence that Paul, in the preceding verses, mentions the fact that they were co-heirs with Christ and would receive the glory that He received. As Jude says, that glory was eternal life. As Paul says, that glory, that eternal life, was bestowed upon receiving the ministry of righteousness.

"2 Cor 3:12 Therefore having such a hope, [speaking of the ministry of righteousness in verses 7-11] we use great boldness- 13 not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were closed. For to this day, at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains; it is not lifted, because it is set aside only in Christ."

 

This is the freedom longed for by the creation. The elect of God had not all come in at this point. Romans 11 speaks of a time in which "all Israel" would be saved. Paul built his case on the fact that all Israel was not speaking of the entire bloodline of Hebrew people, but that the elect were the ones who would come in by faith. When this occurred, and all the elect had turned to Christ, the idea of "all Israel" being saved was accomplished. For this to happen, the veil had to be lifted from their hearts, so that they could see the glory, not of the individual, but of the "ministry of righteousness." This lifting of the veil, which was to take place at the destruction of the temple, was what creation eagerly awaited. The creation of the covenant people of God awaited the glory that came in the freedom from the law.

"Heb 9:8 The Holy Spirit was making it clear that the way into the holy of holies had not yet been disclosed while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is a symbol for the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper's conscience. 10 They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of restoration. 11 Now the Messiah has appeared, high priest of the good things that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation)…28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

This is the meaning of Hebrews 9. The veil that stood over their hearts was there because of the law and the temple. Christ did a great job of pointing out how the law was standing in the way of the Jew. They had taken the heart out of the laws of God and tried to follow the letter of it to the point of excluding its true purpose. He came to show the true meaning of the law to those whose hearts would receive it. The only ones who would receive His teaching were those whom the Father had called (John 6:44, 14:17). Christ links the blinding of the Jews to the destruction of Jerusalem.

"Luke 19:42...If you knew this day what leads to peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you, surround you, and hem you in on every side. 44 They will crush you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave one stone on another in you, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

They would suffer the wrath of God for their blindness. Christ said that the law and Moses testified of His coming but they did not see or believe. Paul says in Romans 11:25-32 that a "partial hardening" [because some of elect Israel was being saved currently] was taking place, even for the elect of Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. Once this fullness came in, the veil would be lifted and the elect of Israel, who had not yet turned to the Messiah, would "receive mercy." The mercy Jude called "eternal life." This was the creation that was eagerly waiting for the redemption of their body. The covenant body, the covenant creation of God was eagerly waiting for its liberation into the freedom of the sons of God.

A proper view of the Romans passages concerning the elect of Israel being saved is important to understand Romans 8. Clearly in Romans 11, the elect of Israel had not all come in to its fullness yet. The number of the Gentiles was being added daily and when their fullness had come in, then the Jews would be made jealous and the veil would be lifted and they would turn to the Messiah. Nothing changes the fact that it is only the "elect" of Israel that this passage is talking about though. This elect is a "creation" of covenant people who were being set apart for God. This is why Romans 8 separates the creation, which has been groaning with "labor pains until now" and those who have "the Spirit as the firstfruits." Paul was speaking to a current group of Spirit-filled Christians about the entire elect who would receive the glory of the freedom of the sons of God, even though some of those who were groaning for this freedom, had not come in yet because the veil had not yet been lifted.

Paul concludes that it is "this hope," that of being set free from the "bondage of corruption" and receiving the "redemption of our bodies," which they were saved in. The problem here is the context of Romans 8 is not saying that the bondage of corruption is the creation of the planet, the bondage of corruption is the slavery to the flesh that we have. Now the question is what keeps us in slavery to the flesh? Is it God's intention to free us of the flesh? Is this the result of salvation? If so, then why does there need to be a physical resurrection? Once we are dead, the dispensational teaches, our spirits are already with the Lord. If this is true then "hallelujah!" I am finally freed from the flesh! However they believe in a resurrection of the flesh and a literal rapture. Where is the benefit of having my body again, glorified of not, if I am already freed of the "bondage of corruption" being out of the flesh with God in Spirit? This truly puzzles me.

What I believe Paul was alluding to in being set free and receiving the redemption is the fact that they would be set free from the thing which caused them to be slaves to the flesh. This bondage was in the law. This bondage was the law of "sin and death."

"Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brothers, you were also put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of the Messiah, so that you may belong to another-to Him who was raised from the dead-that we may bear the fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us and bore fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law...9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life 10 and I died. The commandment that was meant for life resulted in death for me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me...23 But I see a different law in the parts of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to the law of sin."

There are many who will immediately say that these verses prove conclusively that the believer, prior to AD 70, was already made alive and freed from that "bondage of corruption" spiritually speaking. The only thing left to be done was to have the mortal body brought to life as Paul says in Romans 8:10. Then what, I ask, is the meaning of these statements by Paul?

"Rom 8:10 Now if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin..."

Does Paul mean that the physical body is currently dead as he was writing this? What can Paul mean that the body was currently "dead?" The flesh was incapable of producing fruits of righteousness to life. No matter what Paul did he was always, and his flesh was always, under the penalty and imprisonment of death so long as he was trapped in the "body of death." He had been set free from sin in his "mind," but in his flesh he was a slave to the "law of sin." How long would he remain a slave to the "law of sin?" What would set him free from this "body of death to bring about the resurrection he had hoped for?

"Rom 8:11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you."

There is obviously something different going on here than what has traditionally been taught. Was Adam physically changed at the moment of sin? If he had a living mortal body, but died at the point of sin, what changed physically? How could Paul consider himself "dead," at that current time, when referring to his mortal body? He then cries out for the freedom from the "body of death," and says that it will occur through the Spirit that was already in him. His mortal body, which was currently dead, would be brought to life through the Spirit. What would be the result of it? What would this accomplish? What did the resurrection accomplish?

(1) Freedom from the penalty of sin.

Salvation through faith in Christ, which was consummated at the resurrection, brought a freedom from the penalty of sin, which was death.

Christ said that all who had faith in him would never die. Clearly everyone who has believed in Christ over the past 1,974 years since the cross have still physically died. However this death is not the second death. Anyone who believed in Christ would pass from life to life. For this to occur, the sting in physical death had to be taken away. The Bible says the "sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." Sin separated us from God. Sin is what caused Adam to be separated from God and kicked out of the garden. When one physically dies, it has its sting if that person is in danger of being separated from God in the afterlife. A separated person is not even considered alive in the afterlife, but considered "eternally damned." They will suffer the second death. However, the resurrection took away the penalty of sin when Christ, through His Spirit, brought life to the mortal bodies.

 

(2) Freedom from the power of sin.

The rapture/resurrection would bring an end to the power of sin and take the sting out of death.

Paul says that with his mind he was a slave to Christ, but with his flesh he was a slave to sin. In order to release him from this power and give his mortal body life, Christ needed to remove that thing which gave sin its power. The law had to be removed!

 

"1 Cor 15:50 Brothers, I tell you this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption cannot inherit incorruption. 51 Listen, I am telling you a mystery: 'we will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 Because this corruptible must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality. 54 Now when this corruptible is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory. 55 O Death where is your victory? O Death where is your sting?' Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.'"

Paul says in this passage that only after or immediately at the rapture/resurrection, would the saying take place that death had no more sting or victory. If the sting equaled sin, and sin had its power from the law, then the removal of the law would be the time that this statement would come true. Only at the removal of the law, would sin lose its power, and death lose its sting. Simultaneously, the mortal body, which was held a prisoner to the law of sin, would be "changed." In the words of Paul, the mortal body would be "clothed with immortality." This occurred at the destruction of the temple, which was the physical removal of the law (Matt 24:3) at the end of the age, which stood as the veil (2 Cor 3:13-14) that blinded the eyes from the "holy of holies" (Hebrews 9:8-9) of those who were of the "creation" that was eagerly awaiting the freedom of the sons of God (Rom 8:18-25).

b. Understanding the "Body"

This process of bringing life to their "mortal bodies" was not an easy thing to understand. Paul says "I am telling you a mystery: 'we will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed.'" He is saying that though not everyone will be dead when the resurrection occurs, everyone will be changed, both those who are asleep and those who are awake. The reason anyone who was alive would also be changed is that they were considered currently dead according to Paul in Romans 8:10! They were already a dead being. Yet it is clearly not their physical body that was dead and in the grave, it was their soul that was dead! Paul even says that his mind was free from the law of sin but his "body" was not. He says that his "body" was dead, yet it is clear that his physical body was still living! He was a prisoner to the desires of the flesh, because his "body" was dead, even though his mind was free. This truly is a mystery! How do we sort this out?

Some people have taken this bride aspect and taken the personal meaning out of resurrection that the Romans, First and Second Corinthians passages clearly imply. There is too clearly a personal aspect to this marriage as well as there is a personal aspect to this struggle Paul had over his flesh following the "law of sin." This issue holds personal implications. Eternal life would be personally experienced on an individual level. Individual "mortal bodies" would be made alive at the resurrection, at the same time that the ministry of death would vanish and the glory of the ministry of righteousness would be consummated. However, it is the nature of these "mortal bodies" that have given theologians confusion as to the nature of the resurrection based on the preterist implications of timing.

We must have a renewed understanding of the "mortal body." The dead mortal body is not the physical body that was clearly living. The dead mortal body is not the "flesh and bone" which could not inherit eternal life. The idea of the "mortal body" and the physical body are not one in the same. There is a "mortal body" which was dead when Paul was physically alive. First Corinthians offers great insight into this "mortal body" when Paul discusses the marriage and the act of immorality.

"1 Cor 6:12 'Everything is permissible for me,' but not everything is helpful. 'Everything is permissible for me,' but I will not be brought under the control of anything. 13 'Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods,' but God will do away with both of them. The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 God raised up the Lord and will raise us up by His power."

Numerous statements are made here. Paul is battling immorality in the church. It is clear that the church in Corinth was overstepping their "freedom" by sinning against the body. Paul excuses the eating of foods, in this case, because nothing a man can eat sins against the body. However he goes on to say that sexual immorality does sin against the body because the body is for the Lord. How can one eat junk food to the point of obesity and not sin against the body?

If the physical body is the "mortal body" or "flesh" that Paul is referring to, how come there is nothing we consume that can sin against the "body?" It is clear that Paul says God will do away with food and the physical "body" in this passage. Yet we know that the "mortal body" was to be "changed," and those who are asleep will have their "mortal body" resurrected. It is also clear that the resurrected body does not have a stomach (vs. 13). If we rise in a physical body, why does the stomach disappear from our new state? Don't we need to have communion with the Lord at the "marriage supper of the Lamb?" These questions are not sarcastic. Though they may seem silly, these questions are legitimate. How can the "physical body" be said to be done away with yet still have the "mortal bodies" brought to life?

The interesting part of this is Paul says that no food can sin against the body but sexual immorality does. He stresses the importance of sinning against the body with sexual immorality because the body will be raised. Wouldn't cancer and heart disease causing obesity equal STDs in the sense of "sinning against the body" according to God? Paul contrasts the differences between the physical "body" and the "mortal body" later in this chapter. Paul uses marriage to show what type of body He is discussing.

"1Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are the members of Christ? So should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Absolutely not! Do you not know that anyone joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For it says' 'The two will become one flesh.' 17 But anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

The body Paul is referring to, that Paul says will rise, cannot mean a physical body. He says that the food, which is physical, is for the stomach, which is physical, and both will be destroyed. Paul then says the "body" will be raised, and since they are joined in Spirit with the Lord, like a married couple (the bride of Christ), they are not to commit sexual immorality and become one with prostitutes.

In the teachings of marriage we know that two, who come together in sexual relations, are made "one flesh." Their spirits are joined in a marital union. When someone commits sexual immorality, they sin against that union. If someone commits sexual immorality with a virgin, do they sin against the physical body if their body is in no danger of contracting a disease? Is the physical body damaged? No! Just like with food, it is not the outward act that causes sin against the body that Paul is referring to. It is the spiritual union with someone other than your wife that is sin against the "mortal body." The "one flesh" that two married couple has made together is affected.

Sexual immorality sins against the "one spirit" that a Christian has with the Lord, according to Paul. Food does not interfere with the relationship with the Lord. It is the reason Gentiles did not have to abstain from pork. God made all creation good and worthy to eat. Eating foods and drinking wine does not sin against the "body." The body Paul is concerned with is the "one spirit" with the Lord. Sexual immorality sins against the soul. We commit adultery on the Lord when we commit fornication in this life. We have left our one spirit union with Him and joined ourselves with a prostitute in sin. Therefore we sin against the body!

"1 Cor 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! 'Every sin a person can commit is outside the body,' but the person who is sexually immoral sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body."

Paul has already showed it is not the physical body that is affected by the sin of sexual immorality. It is not the outward physical act of sin that is considered against the "body" that will be raised. The body Paul refers to as the "mortal body."

Showing us the nature of the body in which a marriage inhabits shows us the nature of the body that will rise. Sinning against the body through sexual immorality is a spiritual reality. It is the spiritual body, the soul of a man, which was to rise on resurrection day. The flesh that Paul speaks of is not the physical body. the flesh that was to rise and to change at the rapture/resurrection was not the physical body. There is more than one type of "flesh." The type of flesh Paul speaks of is not the physical body, just like it was not the physical body that would rise or change, according to First Corinthians 15.

"1 Cor 15:35 But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?' 36 Foolish one! What you sow does not come life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you are not sowing the future body, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat of another grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He wants, and to each of the seeds its own body."

Paul could not get any clearer. The resurrection is not exactly like Christ because we do not rise in the body in which we die. The physical body was only a seed that must die for the new body to rise. Think of a seed: it dies and is planted and what grows with water and nutrients are the insides that spring to life. Our physical bodies, like a seed, dies, and what is inside rises. Paul himself said it is like a seed.

Paul then specifically addresses and clarifies the natures of flesh, specifically, the flesh that is to rise. Remember, the flesh that will rise according to First Corinthians 6 is the "mortal body" that is sinned against in the act of sexual immorality.

"1 Cor 15:39 Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different than that of the earthly ones. 41 For there is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; for star differs from star in splendor. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead: 'Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; 43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; 44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 'The first man was of the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the man made of dust, so are those who are made of dust; like the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust, we will also bear the image of the heavenly man."

Here it is! The champion verse of a resurrection of the physical body proves its worst enemy. Paul says the seed and different body analogies are like the "resurrection of the dead." He said that the resurrection of the dead is like the bodies he was talking about. He does not say anything about a physical body rising from the dead. The body that is like Adam, the "man of dust," will return to dust, but the body that is like the heavenly man, the "life-giving spirit," will "bear the image of the heavenly man." He affirms the resurrection of believers in a spiritual body! The "mortal body" that would be given life (Rom 8:11) is the soul. The "flesh" that would be made alive, that was dead at the present time that Paul wrote Romans 8, was the soul. He was a prisoner to the "law of sin" because his soul was dead and he could not, in his dead state, stop the physical acts of sinning. It was a war he fought daily and why he said he daily had to crucify his "flesh," which was obviously not a literal statement, and live according to the spirit.

Paul says: "so it is with the resurrection of the dead." The dead are sown in bodies of corruption, "mortal bodies," and raised in bodies of "incorruption." The dead sow a natural body and rise in a spiritual body! Like a seed, the corruption must die and the shell open up so that what is inside may sprout to life. This is the nature of the resurrection according to Paul. What part of a living, physical, sinful man is dead? The soul. They are spiritually dead because of sin. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then continue to sin and party. Paul says that since Christ rose, there is a resurrection of the dead, so the dead will rise and answer to God.

Let me address verses 47 through 49 because people will claim this means we will have a body exactly like Christ. The verse says "we will also bear the image of the heavenly man." In scripture, Adam was made in the image of God. Was Adam divine? Was God made of flesh and blood? The answers to these are obvious; man was in the image of God but not exactly like God. Being recreated in the image of Christ does not mean our resurrection is exactly like Christ's. All it means is we rise also, and bear the image of the heavenly man. On earth we were made in the image of God, but not exactly. When resurrected, the dead were made in the image of Christ, but they were not exactly like Christ. Likewise, the change that occurred in the event know as the rapture was not a physical change into a physically renewed body exactly like Christ, but it was a process of their "mortal body" being brought to life, even in their current, earthly, physical state.

c. Understanding the Relation of the Covenant "Body" and the "Mortal Body."

With this understanding of the body, and with the necessity of the law being removed for the "mortal bodies" to be brought to life, it is clear to see in Second Corinthians, where Paul addresses the "tent" that he longed to be freed from, that Paul was referring to the "ministry of death." It was being freed from this "ministry of death" that would allow his "mortal body" to be changed, to be brought to life. To be free from the "ministry of death" was to be made alive, through faith, in his mortal body. To be free from the "body of death" did not require Paul to die physically or Paul to experience a literal rapture, it required Christ to return a second time for salvation (Heb 9:28) by the law to be physically removed, and the Spirit of Christ would then make alive the creation who eagerly awaited the freedom of the sons of God.

Why then does Paul use the seed analogy in First Corinthians 15 and say that the body must die for someone to rise? Again, therein lies the mystery! Not all would die but all would be made alive. When Paul answered the question of the nature of the resurrection body, he was referring to those who had already died physically while they currently had a dead "mortal body." Does a man who is already alive, after he is changed during the rapture/resurrection, need to "rise" when he physically dies? Does a man who has a "mortal body" that has been freed from the "body of death," been made alive, need to rise from the