Before I get started on what I want to discuss in this post, I would like to take a moment and to apologize to my followers for my extended absence. Truth is that life through me a curve. I had to switch jobs which has put me on a third shift schedule. This switch meant that I am sleeping during the day time and have very little time to write. Additionally, the job change also meant a decreased income, as a result I have returned to school to complete a computer degree I started years ago. This has resulted in the reality that any free time I would have from my new job is usually spent doing classwork. Combining these factors with my family responsibilities, I quickly realized that something had to give. Unfortunately, that something was my writing, and for this I am really sorry.
Having got that off my chest, lets move directly into the topic I had intended for this post, namely- “What does it meant that Jesus is in charge?” I recently had this question posed to me and I responded with the standard seminary answers to the question. However, the more I thought about the question the more I felt the Spirit trying to point out a thread of thought that needed to be unraveled. It was a thought brings us to the heart of what God is doing or not doing.
The thought which gripped me and would not be dismissed is simply this:
If the resurrection inaugurated the kingdom, then Jesus is in charge and the world is not getting any worse. In fact, it should be getting better.
But is this a true statement? I have argued in several posts that God’s intention is the the restoration of all of creation. Assuming that is assertion is correct; it logically does not make sense that God would allow further decay; but rather would bring about agents of change to improve the situation. This He has done through His Son, Jesus, the Bible, the prophets, and everyday Christians.
Furthermore; the Bible itself suggests this is true. Jesus, himself, refers to his coming as being like the days of Noah. He tells the disciples,
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. “
Matt 24:36-39, NIV
Now look at what God said about the days of Noah,
” The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”” 8
Furthermore, in the same chapter, Jesus tells us the atrocities of war are merely routine history (vs-6-7). The world is not getting worse, it is just as wicked as it has always been. So the question becomes is Jesus in charge or not. Again, Jesus tells us,
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
So the Bible confirms that the first two parts of the proposed proposition are true: Jesus is in charge and the world is no worse than its always been. So does this mean that the world is actually improving? As noted historian and theologian N. T. Wright points out,
“For instance, most nations assume some version of human rights; however much we argue about it; however badly we implement it; we sort of assume it. Nobody, but the early Christians, dreamed of such a thing in the ancient world. Most people see poverty and disease as a problem to be addressed. In the ancient world, people just shrugged their shoulders; that’s just how things were. The world is gradually recognizing, as Jesus obviously did, though sadly the church often didn’t, that women are fully human. Much of the world knows in its bones, even though its hard to live up to it, that patience and humility and forgiveness are good things. In the First Century, nobody, apart from a few Jews and those crazy Christians, thought that way at all. We should not downplay or ignore those. Those are major cultural shifts.”
In other words, Jesus being in charge means that the “world” is getting better not worse. It is not heading to some great destruction but a great recreation (cf. Rom 8:18-30) This is what means to say what does it mean for Jesus to be in charge.
So what does this mean for us. It means that God’s kingdom is already at work. It means that we are charged, like with any newly formed government, to create the infrastructure, the culture, and the moral character under which this governance is to occur. It means we need Christian artists to create beauty for beauty sake. We need musicians to write new songs. We need Christ-following architects and construction workers to build Eco-friendly cities. It means we need politicians to push governments into just policies. It means we need school teachers to mentor our kids not just in facts and figures, but in ideas. We need Jesus loving restraunt employees to serve as Jesus served. In short, we need KINGDOM BUILDERS!
The title of this post may seem strange for a blog which promotes the spread of Christianity, but I feel that the explosion of servant evangelism has produced an unintended consequence. I fear that in today’s post modern world with its culture of subjective truth that many Christians present the Gospel as a beneficial practice rather than what it is… namely the TRUTH!
While it is certainly a reality that Christianity has done much good. For example, it was Christians who were in the forefront of providing education to the masses. It was Christianity who built hospitals for the poor. In America, it was Christian’s who were the driving force behind the racial equality movements of the sixties.
However, it is also an equal reality, that Christianity is the impetus of much evil in the world as well. Christianity was behind the crusades. Christianity has been the defense of terrible prejudices towards the LGBT community. Christianity was the used by the K.K.K. to justify lynchings.
As a result, the western Church has responded (and correctly so) by shifting its focus away from forced conversions towards battling the social evils of our day of homelessness, sickness, and hunger. It has, for the betterment, used servant evangelism as way to present Christianity less as a selective club and more a open arms community. However such a shift in focus, in my opinion, has produced a very undesirable effect.
It seems to me as I listen to other Christians present the Gospel the emphasis has shifted from the Gospel being TRUE to its benefits. The Gospel cannot and should not be presented as something that is merely beneficial. It must be presented as something that is a true reality. Christians have become timid in announcing the FACTS of the Gospel.
The facts of Christianity are these:
God created his temple in the form of Heaven and the physical universe
People were created in God’s image to reflect God’s sovereign reign into the temple and the praises of the temple back to God.
People rejected their purpose and worshiped the creation rather than the creator.
Jesus came as God-in-flesh to redeem his creation
Jesus died to bring such redemption
Jesus demonstrated his divinity and right to rule through his resurrection and ascension.
The Church was created to announce that Jesus is Lord.
These facts should produce the servant evangelism, for Jesus’ lordship is for the sole purpose of setting things right. The Gospel is not that Jesus loves you or that Jesus saved you. The Gospel is not that God will see you through your present troubles. While these are all true, they are the consequences of the Gospel. They are not the Gospel, itself. The Gospel is that God is in control and ruling having broken the power of death and instituted justice by inaugurating his Government through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.
As C.S Lewis once wrote,
One of the great difficulties [in sharing the Gospel] is to keep before your audience mind the question of truth. They are always thinking you are recommending Christianity not because it is true, but because it is good.
I had originally intended to post a part 3 to my recent post on Biblical Authority; however, I read a recent blog post in which I felt compelled to respond. In the post the author offered what he thought were 13 common errors found in the beliefs of Christians. While I agree with some of what he suggested, I found myself disagreeing with 3 essential ideas that I felt that an entire post was necessitated in order to properly respond. I will take each point of disagreement one by one in what follows (The numbering will correspond to the numbering found in the original post for ease of comparison).
THAT THERE IS AN IMMORTAL SOUL: Admittedly the scriptures are not clear cut on this issue. However, those who say there is no soul must respond to Ecclesiates 12:7 as well as some very suggestive scientific evidence.
THAT WHEN YOU DIE YOU GO TO HEAVEN OR HELL: I actually believe that all people go to Heaven when they die; and no one goes to what is the popular concept of Hell (meaning a place of fiery torment). Jesus told the brigand that he would see him again in an enclosed park or garden. (Lk 23:43). Now most Bible translations use the word paradise to translate the Greek word However, paradeisos in ancient times were parks or gardens in which weary travelers would rest during a long journey. They acted much like our modern rest stops along freeways. Therefore, Jesus was telling the brigand that he would see him at the garden where the dead await to be resurrected. This is Heaven. I would agree that Heaven is coming to Earth but would suggest the dead wait there until it comes. As N.T. Wright says, Heaven is important but not the end of the world.
THAT THERE WILL BE ANY SECOND CHANCES: I believe that there will be second chances based upon three interconnecting points.
a. Physical matter will be redeemed and integrated with spiritual matter. (Rom 8:20-25). Paul tells us that all of creation is waiting to be redeemed and set free from bondage at the revealing of the sons of God. The picture he paints is that of the expectation of a woman waiting to give birth. Something that will be destroyed does not wait for destruction with hope.
b. We are referred to as a royal priesthood (1Pt 2:9). In both the OT and the NT, royalty and priests are positions of governmental authority. This means that we are people who sit in God’s governmental offices. When the physical is integrated into the spiritual as demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. We will sit in seats of authoritative power. There will be people to rule over who do not sit in government positions. Since all who accept Christ now are to be given these positions, then there must be those who accept Christ later who are given life but not seats within God’s government.
c. When Heaven is integrated with Earth there are still nations that need to be healed (Rev 22:1-2). Again, in both the OT and the NT, nations refer to groups of people. When the New City Jerusalem descends there will be a river of life on whose banks grows two trees. Now, it said that the leaves of these trees are to heal the nations. If all that is left are Christians with God, who needs healed? We will have already been changed. Therefore, these must be physical people groups who have life but are not changed.
In conclusion, while I do not agree with some of the “errors” my brother in Christ pointed out. I can agree with him on one thing: It does not really matter whether you side with him or me, the Grace of God wins.
Wright, N.T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. HarperCollins, 2008.
 N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperCollins, 2008).
It is no secret that Christians consider the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testaments to be their holy writings. However, what sway should these ancient writings have over a believer’s daily life? Is the Bible really at odds with modern scientific understandings? Are these sacred written records really the inspired words of God; or are they simply a mixture of ancient philosophy, poetry, history, and myths? In other words, how can the Bible be authoritative?
In speaking on this subject, decorated Biblical scholar, N. T. Wright suggested that this single question is really two. First, how can book be authoritative? Second, in what manner does a book exercise this authority? These two questions will frame our discussion.
In respect to the first question, it must first be clarified what is meant by authority. Many Christians, especially in the reformed traditions, understand authority as the database where a person goes to find the answer for specific questions. In other words, it is a collection of data to which for any question posed will give a positive or negative answer in order to control or manage any given situation. For example, we might turn to a house painter who has years of experience in order to determine the proper technique to achieve a desired result. In many ways, the Bible does function in this compacity. We find such examples in the books Leviticus, Paul’s letters, Deuteronomy, Proverbs etc.…
However, what do we do with such books Ester? What about the Song of Solomon or even the Gospels? These are mostly narrative driven books. This fact makes the view of authority when applied to the problematic. There is the well-known extreme example of the person who is struggling with suicidal ideation. So, the person prays and tells God that they will open the Bible at random and the first verse they read they will do as the will of God. So they open the Bible and read John 13:27 which says, “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”” The person then goes and kills themselves.
Now clearly this an extreme example of the data collection perspective of authority that borders on the ridiculous. However, it highlights the problem very effectively. The Bible is a collection of different writings. These collected writings are composed of different authors, styles and genres. They have different authorial intent, and cultural content. Therefore, the Bible is not merely a collection of data upon which some basis for action can be determined. If this is true, perhaps, then, it is a collection of truths which simply stand the test of time. That will be the subject of part 2 of this discussion.
Wright, N. T. “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? (the Laing Lecture for 1989).” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991): 7.
 N. T. Wright, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? (the Laing Lecture for 1989),” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991).
J. Feinberg writes in the introduction to his book, No One Like Him:
But even if all the propositions of a systematic theology are true, that theology would still not be equivalent to biblical revelation! It is still a human conceptualization of God and his relation to the world… But human intellect is finite, and hence there is always room for revision of systematic theology as knowledge increases.
With this premise in mind, I propose to begin a series of posts entitled, Objections to Classic Theology. The purpose of such posts will be two bring out points of disagreements that I perceive within classical theology in the hopes of stimulating discussion. Consequently, I implore all who read these posts to feel free to leave their disagreements with my view in the reply with the expectation that we will have a respectful dialogue. Furthermore, I will not necessarily be publishing these posts in sequential order but as I randomly consider different aspects of classical theology. So, without further ado, let us delve into my first objection:
God is Immutable!
W. Grudem defines the immutability of God as “that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in his perfection and in his purposes and promises… and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth and decay in His Being or perfections.”
Therefore, immutability is negation of any change in God’s essential being or necessary attributes. God cannot change. This seems to line up with scripture which says God cannot lie (Num 23:19); neither does he shift like sand (Jms 1:17). However, such a view does not completely line up with totality of scripture. In fact, it is an error of logic to say that it does.
First, however, I must lay out one brief presupposition: Scripture is inerrant. My entire argument is based on that one premise. So, if you do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture we can have that discussion another time; but for the present discussion indulge me. Do so, if for no other reason than the majority of those who have taught the immutability of God have done so from the premise of scriptural inerrancy.
My argument is as follows:
God is Spirit (Jn 4:24).
The Word is God (Jn 1:1)
The Word is Spirit (Jn 1:1)
Jesus is the Word (entire Gospel of John)
Jesus was raised to a physical bodily resurrection (Lk 24:39)
Jesus is still God, so God changed from Spirit to physicality.
Therefore, God cannot be immutable.
The immutability of God cannot be upheld by the truth of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus. Even if one holds to the kenosis of Jesus and the creeds assertion of two natures joined into one without mixture to form the GOD-MAN. Jesus would have had to have been the GOD-MAN from all of eternity past. This is simply not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that at ordained period within human history, God broke in and took on flesh in the person of Jesus, who then was the GOD-MAN. This is simply an error of logic.
Nor can one say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about God being Spirit. As G. Lewis points out concerning John 4:24, “Although some theologies consider “spirit” an attribute, grammatically in Jesus’ statement it is a substantive.” In other words, spirit is the substance (or essential stuff) of God. If the essential stuff of God changes then He cannot be immutable according to the definition of immutability. God has changed within his being. God cannot be immutable.
Feinberg, J.S. and H.O.J. Brown. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Crossway, 2006.
Grudem, W.A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 2009.
Lewis, G. R. God, Attributes Of. Second ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
 J.S. Feinberg and H.O.J. Brown, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Crossway, 2006), xxi.
 W.A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 2009), 267.
 G. R. Lewis, God, Attributes Of, Second ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 492.
Left Behind is a series of books written by Tim LaHaye and Jim Jenkins which deals with the Christian doctrine of the rapture. This account of faithful Christians simply disappearing shortly before the collapse of human civilization and the impending second coming of Christ is a work of complete fiction along the lines of Dan Brown’s DaVinci’s Code. However, the theological foundation, upon which the series’ concept rest, is indeed one of serious scholarly consideration. Furthermore, this concept is not limited to merely fringe groups and denominations within Christian fundamentalism but has spread into the culture at large. After examining the readership of the Left Behind series, Amy Johnson Frykholm notes that the rapture and dispensational theology which the series is based upon “must be understood as a fluid part of the broader culture, not as the realm of isolated believers.”
Since the doctrine has permeated such a large part of both Christian and popular culture, it is important for the lay-Christian and scholar alike to understand exactly what the doctrine is; whether or not it is biblical; and if so what does the Bible say about it. These are the questions I will attempt to answer by examining the history of the doctrine, the most prevalent of the three views of the doctrine and the biblical basis of the doctrine. Additionally, I will attempt to show that although a concept of the rapture may indeed be Biblical, the popular teaching and presentation of the doctrine as sort of escapism from the corrupt material world is not accurate based upon the witness of the early church fathers and biblical exegesis.
A Survey of the Doctrine of the Rapture
What Is the Rapture?
The term “rapture” is a designation by premillennialists to the talk about the event in which the church will be united with Christ at his second coming. The term comes from the Latin, rapio, meaning to “snatch up.” The major Biblical passage from which this teaching emerges is found in I Thessalonians 4:15-17 which states,
Let me explain. (This is the word of the Lord I’m speaking to you!) We who are alive, who remain until the Lord is present, will not find ourselves ahead of those who fell asleep. The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shouted order, with the voice of an archangel and the sound of God’s trumpet. The Messiah’s dead will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, will be snatched up with them among the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And in this way we shall always be with the Lord.
From the interpretation of this verse, the popular teaching of the rapture is depicted through the image of the sudden disappearance of Christians from the perspective of non-Christians; leaving non-Christians left behind to deal with the aftermath. The only real point of contention with this presentation and interpretation deals with the relationship of this “disappearing event” and the tribulation which is believed to occur at the end of the age prior to the second coming of Christ. Pretribulationlists believe the rapture is to occur before the seven-year tribulation. Mid-tribulationalists believe this event to occur after the rise of the antichrist, but before the judgements that pave the way for Christ’s return. Post-tribulationist teach that church will leave with Christ after the seven-year period. In all three views, the rapture is the escaping of the Church from the corrupt physical realm to the spiritual realm of bliss for all eternity known as Heaven. However, it is important to note as Arthur B. Whiting does, that Paul’s focus is not in the direction or the final location of the “snatching away” but rather that the church will be in the presence of Christ.
The Origins of the Doctrine
Despite attempts to demonstrate otherwise, the modern presentation of the doctrine of the rapture is a relatively new concept. It isn’t until the nineteenth century, that the doctrine of the rapture becomes influential within the world of Christian thought and teaching. This is largely due to the contribution of John Nelson Darby and his pretribulation “secret rapture” teaching.
However, since it’s proposal, Darby’s teaching of the rapture has been broiled in controversy. However, many modern scholars have begun to question its validity. As Michael J. Svigel observes, “The perception among interested exegetes and theologians appears to be that rapture theology rests not on verifiable exegesis but on inferences drawn from ambiguous biblical passages and on peculiar dispensational presuppositions.” In response to this, Svigel argues that Darby’s interpretation of the passage in first 1 Thessalonians 4 rests upon his exegesis of Revelations 12:1-6 as well as other passages. He concludes,
In sum, four elements came together for Darby to construct his Pretribulation rapture teaching. The first was a consistent futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation. Second, he held to a strong doctrine of the mystical union between Christ and the church, found stunningly exemplified in the vision of the male child in Rev 12:5. The third element was an openness to distinguishing OT Israel from the NT Church, found envisioned in the woman (Israel) giving birth to the male child (the church) —two distinct entities with separate, but intertwined, destinies both past and future. The fourth element necessary to exegetically construct toe pretribulation rapture view was a literal understanding of the chronological indicators in Rev 11-13.
Three Views of the Rapture
The pretribulation view of the rapture is the one adhered to buy most of mainstream Christianity. This view holds that the church will be “snatched up” to Heaven before the seven years of tribulation supposedly described in the biblical books of Daniel and Revelations. Clouse notes the spreading of this view through the mainstream scholarship from its origins by John Darby in the nineteenth century. There are several features which are key to this view.
The foremostfeature of the pretribulation view is that of immanency. Holders of this view believe that the rapture is immanent, in so far as there are no prerequisite events which need to occur before the rapture, itself. It can and will occur without warning or notice. The notion of immanency is seen to be evidenced by the repeated biblical refrain of “no one knows the day or the hour.” These words, spoken by Jesus, can be found in three key scriptures. These scriptures are themselves responses to questions asked by Jesus’ disciples on aspects of his teaching. Pretribulationists assert that these questions are referring to the last days, a known point of Jewish emphasis.
The second key feature is the two-stage return of Jesus. The two stages being the coming to “snatch away” the church before seven-year tribulation; the second stage being the coming for the millennial reign. The church, it is believed, will escape the entirety of the tribulation.This feature is a result of the other key features of the view, namely, the literal interpretation of Revelations and Daniel’s prophecies concerning the tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ. Pretribulationalism is the almost uncontested view of those who hold to dispensationalism.
The Midtribulation is very similar to the pretribulation. Both views take a literal view of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Both view see the second coming of Christ as two-stage process. The main difference is that proponents of this view move the timing of the first stage to about halfway through the seven-year tribulation. This means that the Church will experience the beginning of the tribulation but escape the last three and half years of the tribulation.
The proponents of the midtribulation have three main points of disagreements with pretribulationist. First, they disagree with the secret nature of the rapture, the revival to be experienced during the tribulation, and the repeated mention of three and half years in both the books of Daniel and Revelation. These they argue are scriptural inaccuracy which require a reworking of the pretribulationalist’s view. The major critique against this view is that there is very little direct Biblical support.
The final view of posttribulation rapture will not be discussed much in this paper, however it is beneficial to briefly note it. This view came out of the direct response to the problems of the two-stage coming of Christ. The major objection of those who champion this view are the various scriptures which suggest that the rapture will be and subsequently the second coming of Christ will be very public and visible. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility within this line of thought. Clouse notes there are at least four schools of interpretation that are recognized by scholars within this view.
The Rapture and the Resurrection of the Dead
One of the major problems with the modern presentation of the rapture within evangelical circles is its relationship to another central Christian doctrine, namely, the bodily resurrection of the dead. Michael Williams highlights the issue when he writes, “When we understand the future via the rapture doctrine, we must say that the ultimate purpose of redemption is to take Christians to heaven.” It argues against the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection by suggesting that the “good” of creation declared by God in Genesis 1 has become corrupted to the point that it is now worthless and needs to be escaped. This is made clear from the escapist teaching that heaven is the final goal and destination of the redeemed.
However, the Apostle Paul, seems to be squarely against this idea when writes to the Roman Church, “Creation, you see, was subjected to pointless futility, not of its own volition, but because of the one who placed it in this subjection, in the hope that creation itself would be freed from its slavery to decay, to enjoy the freedom that comes when God’s children are glorified” (Rom 8:20-21). Therefore, according to Paul, the present physical creation which is corrupt will be redeemed. This would seem to indicate then, that our own redemption will include our own physical nature. Indeed, Jesus, speaking of his own resurrection, said to his disciples, ““Why are you so disturbed?” he said. “Why do these questionings come up in your hearts? Look at my hands and feet; it really is me, myself. Touch me and see! Ghosts don’t have flesh and bones like you can see I have” (Lk 24:38-39). Furthermore, the Apostle John writes, “Beloved ones, we are now, already, God’s children; it hasn’t yet been revealed what we are going to be. We know that when he is revealed we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). In other words, if Jesus’s resurrection was some sort of physical bodily resurrection then ours will be also. If our redemption is physical and the physical cosmos is to be redeemed as Paul claims, then it seems that the escapism that the modern presentation of the rapture teaches seems to be in error because the corrupt created universe will once again become a “good” creation.
This brings up a very important question: What about the scriptures that seem to indicate that people go to heaven when they die such as Jesus’ statement to the brigand on the cross (Lk 23:43). In his book on the resurrection, noted scholar, N. T. Wright argues for a two-stage post-mortem resurrection. He argues that Jesus and the brigand did go to heaven. Jesus returns to Earth in his new physical body, while the brigand awaits his physical body at the second coming of Christ. Wright suggests that when people die they go to Heaven and await Jesus second coming. It is only at the second coming that the believers receive their resurrection bodies. This then would lend support to the “good” creation argument previously expounded as well as deny Heaven as the final destination. As Wright is fond of saying, “Heaven is important, but not the end of the world.”
The Witness of the Early Fathers
As previously stated, the doctrine of the rapture is a relatively new idea. It isn’t until the Darby’s “secret rapture” teaching of the nineteenth century that any great consideration was given. As Clouse notes, “It is obvious that throughout most of the history of the church those that taught premillennialism did not have such a detailed interpretation of the endtimes.” However, despite this lack of endtime interpretations, there are still clues as to what the early church fathers were thinking concerning the second coming and the events which surround it.
One such clue is to be found in the writing of Tertullian. He states,
He teaches them that they must “not sorrow concerning them that are asleep,” and at the same time explains to them the times of the resurrection, saying, For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus shall God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of our Lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we be ever with the Lord.”
Tertullian does not seem to think of the second-coming of Christ as two stage process. In the passage quoted above, the church father implies that the resurrection and the being caught up in the air happen simultaneously with Christ’s return to Earth with the saints. In other words, for Tertullian there is not one coming in which Christ gathers the saints to escape and another in which Christ returns to Earth accompanied by the saints. There is simply one second coming in which the saints meet Christ in the air and accompany him to Earth.
Another such clue is given by Cyprian. On first glance it appears that Cyprian advocates an escapist reality of the rapture. Cyprian is, in reality, dealing with his present situation of Roman persecution. He writes,
We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.
In the last line of the quoted passage Cyprian speaks of a restoration. Certainly, he knows that believers will be “snatched up” as Paul describes. However, his point is not that Christians are snatched away to escape a corrupt physical cosmos, but rather that they are saved from intense persecution. When this salvation occurs, according to Cyprian, the kingdom and paradise of the Garden will be restored. This does not speak of two-stage coming, rather it speaks of a single event. At Christ coming, the paradise and the kingdom of God will be consummated in a very real and physical sense.
The crux of any theological proposition must be that it is supported by scriptural evidence. Does the scriptural evidence support the idea? Svigel argues that Darby’s exegetical treatment, which was the basis of his argument, of Revelations 12:5 and in conjunction with Daniel 7, Revelation 3 and 1 Thessalonians 4 certainly do. However, there are several problems with Darby’s exegesis which need to be addressed.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 states, “The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shouted order, with the voice of an archangel and the sound of God’s trumpet.” The Greek word for “come” is Parousia. Parousia has the meaning of a visit by a royal dignitary. This means that Paul’s intention was not to speak of some escapism from the world, but talk about the escorting of the true king into his sovereignty. St. John Chrysostom confirms this, writing,
If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. And upon the coming of an affectionate father, his children indeed, and those who are worthy to be his children, are taken out in a chariot, that they may see and kiss him; but those of the domestics who have offended remain within. We are carried upon the chariot of our Father. For He received Him up in the clouds, and we shall be caught up in the clouds. Acts 1:9 Do you see how great is the honor? And as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him.
This presents serious problems for Darby’s two-stage advent. Chrysostom is saying that the purpose of the “snatching up” is not to escape the tribulation and then return with Christ at some later time, but rather to escort Christ to his sovereign land.
Revelations 3 and 12
The key component to Darby’s “secret rapture” interpretation of scripture is the immanency of the “snatching away.” This comes primarily from the interpretation of Revelations 3:3 which states, “So remember how you received the message, how you heard it and kept it—and repent! So if you don’t keep awake, I will come like a thief, and you won’t know what time I’m coming to you.” Darby and others point to the phrase “like a thief” as support for their immanent rapture. However, this completely ignores the point that the scripture is making by it’s inherent caveat. The church at Sardis is told to repent, then the warning is issued. The implications are if you are not focused on Christ, then he will come unexpectedly. The unexpectedness is for those not focused on Christ; not believers.
This brings the discussion to Revelations 12:5. This is the Crux of Darby’s argument. It is his corporate understanding of the image of the child who is snatched away in this verse. As Svigel explains that Darby understands the verse as the “vision of the woman in heaven refers to the positional reality of the church, whose subject is Jesus Christ, while the later actions of being pursued and fleeing refer to the actual historical experiences of God’s people.” Darby even has support in this view from Methodius in the fourth century
This does not seem to take into account the historical context from which John’s audience would have understood the image. Radamacher et al, understand this verse to be an echo of Psalm 2:9 and therefore the snatching away as they ascension of Christ. This seems to be more in line with historical context. Commenting on this verse, Keener writes,
Virgil and other Roman also extolled the birth of a divine boy who would bring deliverance to the world, glorifying the first emperor, Augustine…In the various forms of the Greco-Roman and Near Eastern myth, the divine child was sheltered until he returned to slay the dragon. Here he is kept at God’s side until he comes to destroy the dragon. In the light of Psalm 2:6-9, Isaiah 9-6-7, and Micah 5:3, the “birth” probably indicates Jesus death, resurrection and messianic enthronement, not his literal birth.
The first century audience to who John was writing would have understood this to represent Jesus. They simply would not have applied it to the corporate church as Darby and his later followers had. This again presents a huge problem as it is this passage which allows Darby to place the timing of the “Secret Rapture” as pretribulation.
Darby’s whole idea of a “secret rapture” hinges on the idea that certain passages within the Gospel accounts are meant for the church and others for the Jews. It has as its foundation the theology of dispensationalism. Darby argues that Matthew 24 is not intended for Christians, rather it is solely addressed to the Jews. In this manner, Darby dismisses passages such as Matthew 24:29-34 which seeming contradict his immanency and secret rapture theories.
However, Brock Bingaman highlights four deficiencies within the concept of dispensationalism. First, it sees scripture as compilation of facts rather than a narrative moving towards a specific conclusion. Wright supports this view insisting that we have misunderstood the Gospel as compilation of facts rather than a narrative and thereby diminished the significance of the resurrection. The second deficiency given by Bingaman is that it is hermeneutically faulty by committing too strongly to literalism. Third, he suggests that by seeing scripture as a compilation of facts, the interpreter does not give proper emphasis to the historical context. Two examples of this is Paul’s reference to the last trump and Jesus’s “no man knows the hour” references. These are probably references to the Jewish festival of Rosh Hashanah. This feast is determined by the new moon which in biblical times meant no one knew when it would come. Furthermore, it was celebrated by blowing trumpets and the last blast was known as the last trump. Finally, he states it is deficient in their approach to central tenets and particular texts which are must be imposed upon the text itself.
In sum, the rapture has it has been presented by Darby and most of main stream evangelicalism is simply deficient. The exegesis used to support the claim simply does not pass muster once a close examination of the relevant passages has been completed. Additionally, the underlying dispensational theology which underlies the doctrine is also deficient in several areas. As Benjamin Willis Newton, a contemporary of Darby, pointed out, if one were to accept the Darby’s teaching on the rapture that person would also have to accept that many of the Gospel passages as “not rightfully ours.” This means that many of the promises of hope that Christians cling to do not rightfully apply to us either.
This dilemma begs the question that was asked at the beginning; is the rapture a biblical concept or not? The answer: It certainly is if one means that at the second advent of Christ the church will be “snatched up” to meet Jesus somewhere in the physical atmosphere and escort the King of Kings back to the Earth. However, if you mean the secret rapture of Darby’s imagination then the answer is unequivocally no. Jesus and Paul’s use of Jewish metaphors simply does not allow for the dispensationalism that Darby and others have expressed. There is simply too many deficiencies within the doctrine to conclude that the modern expression of the rapture is biblically valid.
I recently read a post entitled The Necessity of Baptism in which the author argues very convincingly that baptism is a necessary step in the process of salvation. Early on in my faith I, too, questioned whether baptism was necessary or merely optional. At the time, my decision to get baptism was determined less by a conviction of its necessity and more by a desire to follow Jesus’s example. However, for those out there who might be wondering what the scriptures say I feel a response is necessary.
The author cites many examples in the Bible where baptism immediately follows a confession in Christ. He then makes the following statement:
Before I get to the next common argument, let me also suggest to you since we were just looking at Acts, to go observe every instance of salvation in Acts. I’ve read the whole book of Acts very carefully, and I can confidently say that you will not find one instance of salvation, where baptism was not conducted as a part of the process.
However, Acts 10 gives us the story of Cornelius, the first converted Gentile. Verses 44-47 says:
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.Then Peter said,“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
Now Paul tells us,
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13-14).
What does that tell us? It tells us that before the baptism of Cornelius, which does not occur until verse 48 of Acts 10, that he had received the deposit of his salvation. Hence, he was already promised salvation. In fact Peter says the reason for the baptism is because he had been saved. Therefore, salvation cannot be a part of the process of salvation.
In summing up, baptism is not required for salvation. It is the symbolic acceptance of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is the announcement of committed faith. It is the sign of the New Covenant. Just as Abraham’s circumcision was not required his God-given promise to be fulfilled, but was a sign that he believed God would fulfill it. Baptism is not a requirement to be saved, rather it is an outward display that the believer truly believes he is saved.
The Apostle John was very concerned about his readers not only believing that Jesus was the Messiah, but that they recognize his deity as well. To this end, John offers seven signs or miracles along with seven “I AM” sayings. The “I Am” discourses were purposely designed to bring to his readers minds the conversation that Moses had at the burning bush in which God identifies himself as “I Am Who I Am” (Ex. 3:14). John’s recording of these discourses were designed to offer insights into the nature of God that Jesus possessed. In this manner, he hoped to demonstrate that Jesus was not merely a human that achieved glory, but rather that Jesus was God in the flesh tabernacling with humanity (John 1:14).
Perhaps one of the most recognizable and enigmatic “I Am” discourses is found in the fourteenth chapter of John’s gospel. This discourse comes as Jesus is explaining to his disciples that he must die and be resurrected. He is attempting to provide preemptive comfort from the upcoming disillusionment they will experience as a result of his death on the cross. This disillusionment probably began with Jesus’ pronouncement that He was going to leave them (Jn. 13:33). This announcement would prompt Peter to ask, “Lord, where are you going?” (v.36a). Jesus responds to the question by stating that where He is going the disciples cannot follow. He, then, goes on to explain that the Father has many dwelling places and He is going to prepare them for habitation (14:2). He tells the disciples, although they cannot follow him now, they will join him later (13:36b). In fact, He informs them that they already know the way to where He is going (14:4).
Despite the assertion by Jesus that the disciples already in full knowledge of the path to get to where He is going, Thomas, ever doubtful, asks, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?” (v. 5). This question prompts one of the most beautiful, yet puzzling responses from Jesus. He simply says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me” (v.6). This statement is at once so very simple, yet so full of paradox. As Guzik points out,
“In light of soon events, this declaration is a paradox. Jesus’ way would be the cross; He would be convicted by blatant liars; His body would soon lie lifeless in a tomb. Because He took that way, He is the way to God; because He did not contest the lies we can believe He is the truth; because He was willing to die He becomes the channel of resurrection – the life to us.”
Guzik correctly points out the singular importance of each of the three affirmations that Jesus points out. Yet ironically, as each one stands on its own merit, it creates an interdependence for the other affirmations. In essence, each affirmation of Jesus is a stand-alone reality that provides validity for the other affirmations. For example, Jesus being “the truth” does not necessarily mean that He is “the Way.” However, since Jesus is also “the Way,” He must also be “the Truth.” It is therefore necessary to understand the importance of each affirmation on their volition before considering the interdependence of one to the others. For in this one statement Jesus sums up who He is as the God-man.
The first affirmation of Jesus is that He is “the Way.” Jesus’ statement is one of exclusivity. In this simple statement recorded by John, Jesus lays the foundation for Paul’s later teaching on circumcision. As Morris notes,
“John is insisting that Jesus is the one way to the Father. He will not allow for one moment that the way of Jewish priestly leaders with their insistence on the place of the law and the significance of circumcision is another possible way to God. Whatever leaders might say, John is affirming that the person of Jesus is such that he and no other can bring us to the heavenly abode. He is not saying Jesus shows the way, but that he is the way.”
Jesus as God who “became flesh” is the singular point of reconciliation between God and humanity. It is only through Christ that the Father is known and we are able to, as Paul states, “approach God with freedom and confidence” (Eph. 3:12).
Truth is an absolute that corresponds to reality. When Jesus affirms that He is truth, He is affirming that He is reality. Jesus’ trial illustrates this in an interesting exchange between Jesus and Pontius Pilate. Jesus asserts, “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (Jn.18:37). Pilate then asks Jesus, “What is truth?” Jesus does not respond, rather Pilate simply leaves and declares that he finds no fault in Him (v. 38). Jesus’ existence corresponded to the reality of sin and death. Jesus was simply affirming this fact. A fact that was confirmed by the entire Old Testament. Jesus is the “substance of that of which the whole of the Old Testament was the shadow. But the substance of anything is the truth of anything. Therefore, Christ is Truth.”
The final affirmation by Jesus is that He is life. Life is an attribute that belongs to God. As Towns points out, “The fact God has existence and is a Person implies a third characteristic in His description: God is life. Since the nature of personhood is life, and God is a Person, we conclude that God is life.” Since Jesus affirms that He is life, Jesus therefore, is affirming his own deity. In essence, He is saying, “I am God who breathed into the nostrils of man, making him a living being. I am where life is to be found.” This is to be taken in both a present and prophetic sense. Presently, his existence shows that God exists and therefore He is life. Prophetically, He was referring to His death on the cross and the subsequent resurrection.
These statements, although able to stand-alone on their own merit, form an ideological comprehensiveness vital to all Christians. The exclusivity of these affirmations reveal that it is through Christ, and Christ alone, that God can be found; Salvation can be received, and reality can properly be understood. Jesus’ concern for his disciples was not that they comprehended where He was going but more so that they perceived who He was. As Morris concludes,
“This comprehensive saying, then, claims an exclusive position for Jesus. He is the one way to God, he is thoroughly reliable, and he stands in a relation to truth such as no one else does. The same, of course, is true of his relationship to life.”
John’s purpose for writing his gospel was “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). By recording Jesus’ affirmations of “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John is giving us the basis of that belief. Jesus is the messiah because through His death and resurrection Jesus provides the way to the father. Jesus is truth, because He corresponds to the present reality of a sin corrupted world by demonstrating his righteousness as the antidote thereby confirming the empirical nature of his ministry. Finally, Jesus is life because He is God. Only God is self-existent. It is only through Christ that life can be received. Jesus summed up his entire existence in one simple sentence. John summarizes this existence in with the words, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (3:16).
 Elmer Towns, The Gospel of John: Believe and Live (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002), 140.
 David Guzik, Commentary on John (Santa Barbara: Enduring World Media, 2012).
 Leon Morris, Jesus Is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 118-119.
The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), s.v. “Truth, Theories Of.”
 Sermons J. Vaughan, “Christ the Truth,” in Sermon Outline Bible Commentary, ed. Ephesians Four Group (Ephesians Four Group, 2014).
 Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008), 104.
It is a prevalent idea that there is no second chance for non-believers who die without coming to Christ in this life. In an earlier post, I argued the traditional view of Hell does not stand to logical reasoning and interpretation of Scripture. In this post I would like to challenge readers to answer 3 questions. These questions I believe will challenge the idea that there is no chance at salvation other than accepting Christ in this life.
Revelations clearly states, that the non-believers will be resurrected after 1000 year millennium (Revelation 20:5). Then who are the books opened for to see if their names are in the book of life? For believers have already been changed and given their new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:52). If the believers have already been given their reward, it must be the non-believers that are being searched for in the book of life.
Why the second resurrection at all? If the believers have their reward and non believers are in hell? Why have the second resurrection at all?
If the majority of the people who have ever lived are in hell, then how is God to become “All in all”? (1 Corinthians 15:28).
I believe the only solution to these questions is simply this. Non-believers will be raised and given the opportunity to make one last choice after the millennium.
I believe most biblical scholars and teachers have far to narrow view of the doctrine of salvation. It is human nature, I think, to latch on to something that catches our eye and run with it. We do this without stopping to consider the big picture. I readily admit I am guilty of this my self from time to time. Yet, when we make doctrine or a belief system out ideas that we have not properly fit into the whole, we run the risk of building on a faulty foundation. It is my opinion that this is what has happened to the doctrine of salvation, especially in terms of Christ atoning work. I would like to look at Christ’s atoning work from a point of view of the big picture of salvation.
Salvation’s big picture
We must begin by establishing what the big picture of salvation is. For that purpose I would like to discuss some key biblical verse that will help us put salvation in full view.
Here is the story of the first human sin. I would like to highlight several points of interest which relate to the big picture of salvation.
The first Biblical prophecy concerning Christ occurs with just the first two humans in existence. The timing of the giving of the prophecy would imply that the results of the prophecy were to be for all of humanity (v. 15).
Mankind is never directly cursed for their sin. The serpent is cursed; the land is cursed; mankind is not (vs. 14-17)
God covered the shame of Adam and Eve, himself (v.21).
Cherubim always Guard the throne of God. The placing of the Cherubim to guard the Tree of Life may imply God’s intention to always rule his creation from their own habitation (v.24).
Looking at Genesis 3, we may make the inference that the original plan of Salvation included God ruling from his created habitation over all of mankind. Through his omnipotence God foresaw the entrance of sin and thereby never intended to curse mankind.
This is probably the most well-known passage of the Bible. Although there is disagreement as to who the quote should be attributed to, it cannot be argued that Jesus intended the whole created universe to be included in salvation. The Greek word kosmoslitterally means “something ordered.” Everything that God ordered out of the chaos of that was void, God intended to save. This includes all of the plants, animals, planets, stars, and of course, mankind.
At the end of Revelation, John connects Genesis 3 with the finalization of Salvation. In this passage of scripture, we see God restoring all of the kosmos. We see God’s throne once again upon the habitation of his creation. We see the healing of all the nations.
So what does this picture of Salvation look like? God loved his creation that He planned to save All of it. He planned from the beginning to save everything He had created out of love.
The Atoning Work of Christ.
Concerning the atoning work of Christ, two main views have prevailed since the reformation. The Calvinist view of Limited atonement and the evangelical view of Unlimited atonement. Both views have their flaws. I will address both presently
The Calvinist view of Limited atonement essentially says that their are people destined to be saved, the rest are not.
Redemption is adequate because Christ gave his blood for sin. He therefore redeemed the lost (Towns 2008, 429-30).
There is another argument used by evangelicals against limited atonement. It is this argument that demonstrates the very inadequacy of the view.
“God is one, which means He is Unity and acts in perfect harmony with his nature. Every part of God influences every other attribute of God. One attribute can never act in isolation from the others, hence God cannot be guilty of acting ignorantly or with a double mind.”
“The law could not be abrogated because it was an extension of the nature of God…Jesus nailed the demands of the law to the cross and made and end of the law. The end of the law does not mean Christ put the law out of existence not just for the elect, but that the law is no longer in effect as a moral judge to condemn mankind”(Towns 2008, 429,30).
The above quotes from Elmer Towns show the contradictory nature of the evangelical view. There can only be 2 conclusions that may be inferred concerning the atoning work of Christ from these statements:
1. The acceptance of Christ’s death and resurrection have been rendered useless. The Bible teaches sin is the breaking of the law (1 John 3:4). If the law is no longer used to condemn mankind. There is no need for sinners to come to Christ because the law is no longer in effect. So in effect, there is no law even though the law exists. The apostle wrote to the Church at Rome, “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law” (Romans 5:13). So since there is no sin because the law is no longer in effect, there is no need to accept Christ’s atonement.
2. God is double-minded and Christ’s death did nothing to effect our salvation. If the law is no longer what condemns us, then something else does. Christ’s atonement dealt with sin which is the breaking of the law. Since the law is no longer condemning mankind, God has broken his Unity and thereby denies His own existence. Also Christ’s atoning work does nothing for this new thing which condemns mankind.
While it is my opinion that evangelicals are closer to the truth than Calvinist. The seeming contradiction to Biblical truths within their arguments seem to need answering. I propose the following solution to the problem. Christ’s atoning work did indeed free mankind from condemnation. This, however, does not obligate God to offer everlasting life. It does, guarantee, that even those who reject God, in this present life, will have an opportunity to accept him at their subsequent resurrection at Christ’s second coming.