In Paul’s introductory remarks, he identified his letter’s recipients as, “. . . the called of Jesus Christ . . . [i.e.,] to all who are [presently] beloved of God in Rome, called saints . . .” (Rom. 1:6-7). From the apostle’s description of those to whom he dictated his letter, it seems incontestably clear that the letter’s recipients were born again.
A few sentences later, Paul explained his eagerness to visit, in Rome, these same people: “. . . I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome” (Rom. 1:15).
Juxtaposing the identity of those in Rome with Paul’s desire to preach the gospel to them seems to suggest that Paul desired to preach the gospel to Romans who had already been born again. Why would the apostle want to preach the gospel to those who already had eternal life?
The confusion aroused by this question is intensified by the popular translation of Paul’s description of the gospel itself: “. . . it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). This translation appears to offer every unbeliever God’s salvation through belief (faith).
The answer to this perplexing question of Paul’s gospel preaching to saved people lies in a spiritual observation with which Paul inferentially charged the Roman saints: “. . . for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin . . .” (Rom. 3:9). What Paul’s charge asserted (by inference, in Rom. 1:16) was that, while the Roman saints possessed permanently and irreversibly eternal life by belief in God’s promise of forgiveness of sins through Jesus’ death, they were still enslaved to the power of sin that dwelt in their physical bodies. The power of sin had prevented those born-again Romans from achieving the “obedience of faith” other born-again gentile saints had already achieved (cf. Rom. 1:5; 16:26).
In light of this analysis, a better, grammatically correct, translation of Romans 1:16 would read, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation [from the enslaving power of indwelling sin] to all the presently believing ones, to the [believing] Jew first and also to the [believing] Greek.” To express Paul’s confession of confidence about God’s gospel in negative terms, the apostle affirmed that those born-again Romans who would not believe God’s gospel regarding indwelling sin would never be able to manifest an acceptable obedience to God’s will.
The explanation of why God’s salvation from the enslaving power of indwelling sin had to be given to the Jew first lay in the fact that the power of indwelling sin in the lives of God’s people was derived from the Law God gave Moses for the Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 15:56). So the Diasporal Jew deserved notification first that the Law had become obsolete (cf. Heb. 8:13) with respect to a believer’s obedience now based on belief of God’s New Covenant. Paul had witnessed firsthand this ignorance of God’s New Covenant inauguration among Diasporal Jews (Acts 19:1-7).
The obsolescence was demonstrated by the Spirit’s power in forever freeing Jesus from the power of indwelling sin (and death) at His resurrection (Rom. 1:4; cf. the event of 2 Cor. 5:21 followed sequentially by the event of Rom. 6:9-10).
Gentiles manifest the “obedience of faith” when they “. . . do, by nature [a nature newly acquired per Ezek. 38:26], the things of the Law . . . in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts . . .” (Rom. 2:14-15; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3). This behavior stems from belief alone in God’s New Covenant promise (Ezek. 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances;” cf. Phil. 2:13). The God-designed mechanism for causing the “obedience of faith” was Christ’s indwelling the believer as his Lord, and manifesting His perfectly obedient life by the power of the Spirit through the faith of the believer (cf. 2 Cor. 4:11).
For Jews, the “obedience of faith” acceptable to God is absolutely opposed to the obedience by the believer who decides to please God by resolving, with sincerity and determination, that he, himself, must obey God’s pertinent commandment (e.g., to love one another per Rom. 13:8-10), thinking God will enable him to obey by grace. The result recorded by Paul when he, himself, decided to obey God’s commandment re coveting, was abject failure because God never intended to supply His grace to enable the apostle’s sin-deceived decision (Rom. 7:7-24).
Salvation Strategies
Introduction
The apostle Paul adopted two salvation strategies for “the circumcised.” Two strategies were necessary because the circumcised, for the most part, were divided into two categories: unsaved and saved. Jews dominated “the circumcised,” although it was likely that small numbers of gentiles (e.g., proselytes to Judaism) could also be found in the two categories of unsaved and saved.
Strategy One
Paul’s strategy for salvation of unsaved Jews was to make them jealous by gentiles who had believed in God’s promise for forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This strategy was based on God’s revelation to Moses that He intended to use gentiles to make Jews jealous (Deut. 32:21).
Paul’s endorsement of this strategy was outlined in Rom. 11:13-15. An example of Paul using this strategy in practice may be found in Acts 13:42-47. Failure of this strategy in the life of an individual was by God’s calling, and meant a destiny for that individual in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11-15).
Strategy Two
The second strategy for salvation of saved Jews was based on God’s promise of freedom for believers from slavery to indwelling sin (Isa. 61:1, “proclaim liberty to the captives”). Paul adopted this strategy as announced in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:20).
The strategy was to temporarily adopt the lifestyle and practices of the saved individual to promote and facilitate exposure to God’s word so the saved individual might choose to live by faith rather than by observing the Law of Moses.
Content of the believer’s faith was that Jesus’ obedient life within the believer as his/her Lord would be manifested by the power of God’s Spirit (cf. Rom.10:1-13). An example of Paul using this strategy in practice may be found in Acts 22:17-26. Failure of this strategy in the life of a saved individual results from absence of God’s mercy as well as God’s wrath and indignation at the judgment seat of Christ (cf. Rom. 9:15; 2:6-13). Failure also results in loss of sharing the Firstborn’s inheritance of the world (Rom. 4:14-14; 8:17, 29).
Conclusion
Many in Christendom do not recognize these two separate strategies because they fail to make a distinction between God’s promise of forgiveness of sins and His promise for freedom from slavery to indwelling sin. Thus, both of God’s two distinct strategies, strategies to deal with two separate issues, become lumped into a single strategy causing much debate and confusion among the sages of the faith.
Prayer and Salvation
A coterie of sincere and dedicated women in a local church has dedicated itself, for years, to pray for unsaved family members and spouses whose relatives attend the church. The group encourages participation from other church members, and proclaims its answered prayers by recounting the total from its formerly-unsaved list that has come to know the Lord. Is such a practice biblical?
The biblical issue is one of God’s sovereignty. The issue may also be framed as man’s works versus God’s grace.
According to the scriptures, God has chosen, before creation, those among Jews and gentiles whom He will give, unilaterally, unconditionally, and permanently, the gift of eternal life. Eternal life is life lived forever (presently, and beyond the grave) apart from being banished to the lake of fire.
Consequently, to pray that God would “save” someone unsaved, i.e., keep a specific individual from banishment to the lake of fire, means that one petitions God to change a condition He has already determined in eternity past.
It is clear biblically, that God does not alter His decision taken before creation about who is chosen, and who is not chosen.
Nevertheless, God might be agreeable to alter His decision about the timing of implementation of His decision regarding an individual’s salvation. Recognition of God’s freedom from saved man’s prayers is acknowledged when saved man prays, “. . . Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven . . .” Biblical evidence supports this understanding of God’s flexibility in the timing of His decisions, but His inflexibility about the substance of His decisions.
Thus, saved humanity’s prayers can legitimately be applied to God’s timing for salvation of the unsaved.
Nonetheless, a dramatic alternative understanding about praying for God’s salvation also exists biblically.
Following is an analysis derived from biblical evidence that supports an alternative understanding.
Salvation is comprised of two components: one, forgiveness of one’s personal sins; and two, freedom for the saved from enslavement to indwelling sin. The first component is exclusively God’s decision and work, before He ever created, for those in Jesus’ Church. The second component is subject to man’s fundamental understanding derived from the first component, and from God’s word.
If the first component is subject to man—i.e., man’s abilities—then man can play an important, exclusive, and foundational role in his own salvation. Such an idea places man and God’s sovereignty on equal footing.
Still, if the first component is dependent totally on God’s sovereignty, then man has no role, contribution, or part whatsoever in his salvation from the lake of fire. Biblical evidence supports God’s sovereignty.
This is not true, however, of the second component of salvation. Freedom from enslavement to indwelling sin (revealed in God’s word), is also a God-designed integral part of His salvation. But, this component is very much dependent upon saved man. God’s salvation equips saved man with equipment that the unsaved simply do not possess.
Freedom from enslavement to indwelling sin is dependent upon saved man. This freedom resides very much in saved man’s own hands. Saved man can decide and choose to live the remainder of his life, after being born again, by belief in God’s promise that He, Himself, will maintain His child’s freedom from indwelling sin. Or, saved man can decide to make his own contribution, from his own resources, to God’s salvation scheme for achievement and realization of freedom from sin.
The Bible teaches that by prayer and learning the truth, saved man can make the proper decision—i.e., a choice to believe in God’s promise to provide freedom quite apart from man contributing anything himself to the God’s plan.
The penalty for deciding to contribute to a life pleasing to God after forgiveness of one’s sins, is, without exception, failure. Failure does not mean ending up in the lake of fire, but it does mean separation from Christ and loss of God’s grace in daily living. Failure also means a behavioral lifestyle completely unacceptable to God, and deeds by His child that will be judged by the Father with indignation and wrath.
The Two Days Of The Son Of Man
And He said to the disciples,
“The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.” Luke 17:22
In this statement recorded only by Luke (17:22-37), Jesus referred to “one [emphasis mine] of the days of the Son of Man.” Emphatically implied was another day of the Son of Man. In further explanatory comments, Jesus went on to teach His disciples some characteristics about both days.
Jesus spoke these words on the way to Jerusalem several weeks before His death and resurrection. As far as we know, He taught His entire band of disciples about both His days well before He discoursed prophetically on the Mount of Olives to the fortunate four of Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Hence, these four were likely quite familiar with the material about the days of Noah delivered during the Olivet Discourse, and how that illustration related to one day of the Son of Man.
This essay will contrast Jesus’ teaching in this pericope about the two days of the Son of Man, showing that His two illustrations of Noah and Lot cannot possibly refer to the same day. Further, the characteristics of each day illustrated will be compared with the characteristics of the Rapture and with the characteristics of the Second Coming to show unequivocally that Jesus referred to these two days.
Recognizing the prophetic distinctions of His two days in this pericope will help dispel some of the interpretive confusion about the Rapture and the Second Coming recorded in Matthew’s account of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:1-25:46). Some corollaries about the doctrine of imminence, and the timing of the two days will also be discussed.
Probably stimulated by a discussion with Pharisees about the timing for God’s coming kingdom, Jesus took the opportunity to inform His disciples about the two days of the Son of Man. Jesus illustrated each day separately from biblical history.
At the outset, it is critically important to realize the two days of the Son of Man are not literal 24-hour days. Jesus used the word “day” figuratively to mean an indefinite period of time used to encompass the details of a particular event. We can discover this fact by recognizing Jesus’ comparative illustrations describing His two “days” feature a plural qualifier, “in the days (plural, emphasis mine) of” Noah and Lot. Contrasting the illustration of the days of Noah with that of the days of Lot highlights the following significant differences.
1. In the days of Noah, God’s judgment was announced beforehand (locally) over a significant period by Noah’s preaching, by and throughout actual construction of the ark, by occupancy of the ark, and by the seven-day lapse between completed occupancy and the deluge’s onset. In the days of Lot, God’s judgment had extremely limited angelic announcement—less than 24 hours to a single family and prospective husbands.
2. Prior to judgment in Noah’s day, the world’s population was involved in activities that crossed ethnic, racial, social, professional, and economic boundaries. The prejudgment days of Lot’s neighbors were limited to commercial activities of buying, selling, planting, and building. And if one might speculate anachronistically, the “eating” and “drinking” of Lot’s community before the brimstone and fire may have referred to “business luncheons,” thereby characterizing a commercial community almost wholly focused on the pursuit of business.
3. God’s judgment in Noah’s day was water. God’s judgment in Lot’s day was brimstone and fire.
4. God’s judgment in Noah’s day lasted months. God’s judgment in Lot’s day lasted hours.
5. God’s judgment in Noah’s day was independent of man’s negotiations. God’s judgment in Lot’s day was subject to Abraham’s negotiations with his Lord, and Lot’s negotiations with the two angels.
6. God’s judgment in Noah’s day was worldwide—i.e., universal. In Lot’s day, God’s judgment was localized, restricted to two cities and their surroundings.
7. In Noah’s days, God successfully saved all the families of man (Ham, Shem, and Japheth) from judgment. In Lot’s day, God successfully saved only the family of Abraham’s relative from judgment.
8. After judgment in Noah’s days, the earth would again support life. After judgment in Lot’s day, the scorched earth never again supported life.
9. After judgment in Noah’s day, his relocation destination was God determined. After judgment in Lot’s day, Lot himself determined his relocation destination—a small town in Israel.
These nine points of contrast between the days of Noah and the days of Lot force one to the conclusion that Jesus never intended the two illustrations to correspond to the same day. Their common theme is escape from God’s judgment but in dramatically different ways under dramatically different conditions.
Let’s explore the bases for comparison. The days of Noah featured God sealing informed representatives from all the families of man in an ark to protect them from His imminent worldwide judgment. For seven days, nothing happened. During this hiatus, the world’s population did not alter, one iota, its lifestyles or activities. Life went on as usual because people of the world had no understanding of what was about to happen. Likely, they had never seen rain—certainly not forty days’ and forty nights’ worth (cf. Heb. 11:7). When judgment came, it was a unique, once-only, universal event, unprecedented in human experience.
Now, one can compare the days of Noah with the Rapture of the Church. At some point in time, God will remove a specific group comprised of representatives (some spiritually enlightened) from every family of man to the safety of heaven, instantaneously and simultaneously, from all corners of the earth to protect them from His imminent, worldwide judgment. For some brief but indeterminate time period, the world’s population will maintain its lifestyles and activities because they live in spiritual darkness—without understanding of the judgment that is about to happen. The lifestyles and activities are general in nature and do not highlight any one societal segment. When God’s tribulation judgment of Daniel’s seventieth week breaks forth (cf. Dan. 9:27), it will be a unique, once-only, universal event—unprecedented in human experience.
It’s easy to see why Jesus’ seven-point comparison of the days of Noah fits so nicely with the Rapture of the Church.
Now let’s explore the days of Lot. Remember, righteous Lot (Abraham’s relative) and his family members lived as sojourners in Sodom and Gomorrah. Those cities were not home to the family. God advised the family that Sodom and Gomorrah were about to be totally and permanently destroyed by divine action due to their abhorrent practices. Residents of those two cities, mostly unaware of God’s pending and specific judgment, were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building (Luke 17.28). The only intelligent recourse for Lot and his family was to preserve their lives by fleeing the area with urgency and singleness of purpose. Lot petitioned for a town later to be named Zoar as the destination for his flight.
If we fast-forward to events just preceding Jesus’ Second Coming, we discover from God’s spokesmen, Jeremiah and the apostle John, that another contingent of Abraham’s relatives had taken up residence in Iraq—in the city of Babylon whose practices had become abhorrent to the God. While Babylon’s residents were narrowly oriented toward commerce—buying, selling, planting, and building (cf. Rev. 18:11-20)—sudden destruction (including fire) would come upon them in one day (Rev. 18:8). The prophet advised these Jews to flee Babylon (Jer. 51:6; cf. Rev. 18:4) because divine action would render Babylon permanently destroyed, desolate, and unfit for human habitation—just like God had done to Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 50:40; cf. Rev. 18:8). The city of destination for the flight would be Jerusalem, in the homeland of Abraham’s descendants (Jer. 50:28; 51:50).
Notice these seven points of similarity between the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah and what will take place for Abraham’s family descendants in the judgment of Babylon.
Jeremiah’s prediction, as well as those of the apostle John, fit perfectly with events timed closely to Jesus’ Second Coming when He is revealed (unlike the Rapture in which He is not revealed worldwide). Therefore, Jesus’ comparison recorded by Luke with the days of Lot pointed directly to His second day. Jesus’ second day is referred to as His Second Coming.
We now have biblical evidence before us that Jesus taught His disciples about His two days several weeks before His Olivet Discourse—the two days being the Rapture of the Church and His Second Coming.
Therefore, when Jesus taught about the days of Noah in Matt. 24:37-41, His students already knew He was teaching about the Rapture.
It might prove worthwhile to pause here and discover a few other important facts from this passage in Luke.
First, Jesus told His disciples they would long for, but not see, the Rapture. The reason they would long for the Rapture is revealed in Luke 21:12-17. His disciples would face persecution, excommunication, imprisonment, betrayal by friends and family, and ultimately death. The reason they would not see the Rapture was that it would happen after their lives on earth ended. Thus, their writings and teachings could not possibly reflect an understanding that the Rapture was imminent in their respective lifetimes. Their writings and teachings might well express an intense, heartfelt longing for day one of Jesus’ comings, but certainly not a suspicion that His coming for them would happen while they were alive.
Second, since day one of the Son of Man’s comings would mean simultaneous removal of people sleeping at night with those working during daylight hours (Luke 17:34-35), the event would have to be instantaneous and worldwide. Since it was highly unlikely that believers in Jesus existed in Hawaii, West Samoa, or New Zealand (the nighttime locations) during the apostles’ lifetimes within the Roman Empire (the daytime locations), the possibility of any of the apostles experiencing the Rapture was truly remote to nonexistent.
Third, since the Rapture would not happen to them (and they could not know the day and hour the event would take place—cf. Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7), it might well be that they began to refer to the worldwide, instantaneous “longed-for day,” as “that night” (Luke 17:34) or “that day” (Matt. 24:36). This might explain the indefinite allusions to what we have come to know as the Rapture. If such a suggestion were plausible, interest in and reference to that day or that night would be relatively miniscule in the lives of Jesus’ first-century followers. “That” day/night bore little relevance for them.
In fact, Paul referred to the day as the “caught-up-together-with-them-in-the-clouds-to-meet-the-Lord-in-the-air” day (1 Thess. 4:17). It was not until some significant number of years later that the sobriquet, “Rapture,” was attached to day one of the comings of the Son of Man.
Fourth, it is glaringly clear that the Rapture of the Church happens well before the beginning of the Tribulation. Simply put, from the data in Luke 17:22-37, it is clear an indeterminate period of time elapses between the Rapture (with God’s Rapture-contemporaneous return of kingdom management to His nation Israel), and Israel’s signing a seven-year covenant with the antichrist—beginning Daniel’s 70th week.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=44093
Introduction
In the late summer of 1992, Thomas Ice authored an article in Biblical Perspectives entitled, “Israel’s Fall Feasts and Date-Setting of the Rapture,” vol. V, no. 4. Austin, TX: Biblical Awareness Ministries, 1992. Ice’s article argued that only Israel fulfills its Fall Feasts—not the Rapture of the church. His essay may well have been stimulated by the 1991 publication of a book entitled, Forbidden Knowledge: Or Is It . . . written by Dorothy A. Miller (Fountain Valley, CA: Joy Publishing, 1991). Miller strongly suggested the Rapture would occur on some soon-approaching Rosh HaShanah.
Perhaps further stimulated by Harold Camping’s projection of a 1994 Rapture in, 1994? New York: Vantage Press, 1992, Ice was again prompted to articulate the position that the Bible absolutely forbids date-setting (“Why the Bible Still Prohibits Date Setting,” Pre-Trib Perspectives, vol. 1, no. 3. Washington, D.C.: Family Life Seminars, 1994).
Thomas Ice’s position is not unique among writers who struggle to understand and explain biblical prophecy. In fact, David Allen Lewis in his revised Sixth Edition of Prophecy 2000 (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press, 1993) actually proposed a “manifesto” to be signed by church leaders, denominational officers, pastors, seminary professors, and teachers demanding that all date-setting and date-suggesting cease immediately (pp. 231-232).
In the face of opposition like this, why is the following paper addressing topics like prophecy and the rapture? The answer is: all the scriptures have to say about the subjects has not been completely elucidated or accurately interpreted. What is presented here is not a polemic against what other authors have suggested. It is simply adding some new evidence with special emphases so the believer may become biblically oriented to the times in which we live.
Old Testament
It seems likely that the key to understanding prophecy from a believer’s vantage point in this present time is found in Dan. 9:26 and 9:27. From a Jewish perspective, Dan. 9:26 might be termed the “desolation/diasporal generation” because of what happened to Jerusalem, the temple, the land, and the people in the year 70.
The word “generation” here is not used as a time indicator—rather the word is a poignant and relevant characteristic of a particular group actually comprised of several chronological generations. Like “generation X,” or the “baby-boomer generation.”
Also, from a Jewish perspective, Dan. 9:27 might be termed the “rapture/tribulation generation.” Rapture and tribulation are self-explanatory.
These generational qualifiers were coined for clarity. They cannot be found as such in the scriptures.
Moses probably pinpointed the last of the desolation generations in Deut. 29:22-28. The “foreigner who comes from a distant land” was likely a reference to the British who administrated the land under the Palestine Mandate until 1948. The issue was the land’s condition of waste and desolation. In Deut 29:29-30:10 that follows, and in Ezek. 38:1-39:16 where the land is no longer desolate, the prophets alluded to conditions of the rapture/tribulation generation.
New Testament
The Olivet Discourse in the Synoptics, as well as the seven messages to the seven congregations in Revelation, address the same two generations of Daniel. The first generation was the desolation/diasporal generation of Dan. 9:26. The second generation is the rapture/tribulation generation of Dan. 9:27. The difference between material in the Synoptics and the Revelation is that the former was for believing Jews in the land, while the latter was/is for believing Jews outside the land.
A. Olivet Discourse
To properly understand the Olivet Discourse, it is necessary to combine all three accounts from all three writers. The disciples’ third question to Jesus, “ . . .what [will be] the sign . . . of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3) is particularly pertinent to identifying the generation witnessing fulfillment of Dan. 9:27.
It is also necessary to understand two figures Jesus used in His parable teachings. The vineyard was a figure for the nation Israel (Isa. 5:1-6). The fig tree was a figure for the Aaronic priesthood (Judg. 9:7-20 by deduction; see also, Custance, Arthur C. “Three Trees and Israel’s History,” in Time and Eternity, Vol. VI, The Doorway Papers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977, pp. 70-72).
From the Olivet Discourse for the Dan. 9:27 rapture/tribulation generation, the parable of the budding fig tree answered the disciples’ third question and related to the revival of the Aaronic priesthood in Israel.
Priests began their service at 30 years of age (Num. 4:3; 2 Chron. 31:16). The priesthood revival took place in 1978, 30 years after the end of the desolation/diasporal generations in 1948.
( The year 1978 for the priesthood revival may be verified at both http://www.wzo.org.il/Ateret.htm and http://www.Keshev.org.il/English/reports.shtml.)
A profound and interesting similarity exists between the Dan. 9:26 and 27 generations. Jewish Messianic believers in the land comprised a component of the Dan. 9:26 desolation/diasporal generation when Jesus taught in parables. His teaching in parables was designed to keep unbelieving Jews separate from Messianic Jews (Matt. 13:11).
Currently, both unbelieving Jews and Messianic Jews exist together in the land. So, to maintain these two groups separate until the rapture and tribulation events (Dan. 9:27), Jesus gave the sign for the end of the age in a parable—the parable of the budding fig tree. This was probably intended for keeping Messianic Jews in the land aware of the pending end of the age, while not alerting observant Jews. Such separation allows observant Jews to make the necessary preparations for the temple and the priesthood without themselves believing in Jesus as the Messiah, thereby eliminating the potential for wholesale departure of the prepared priesthood via the rapture.
According to Moses, the time span of a biblical generation lasted about 70 years (Ps. 90:10). And Jesus taught that before that particular generation of priests would pass away, about 40 years after their service was initiated in 1978—or, about 2018—“the end of the age” would be brought about by His coming (aka “fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles” per Luke 21:24).
From revival of the priesthood, we can identify the Jewish generation that will witness Messiah’s coming at the end of Daniel’s 70th week. The rapture will occur sometime before the tribulation of Dan. 9:27 begins. But we cannot know the day and hour of the rapture. Our God-designed ignorance is because God the Father has reserved that information exclusively to Himself alone (Matt. 24:36). The reason for God’s secrecy is so Satan (“an angel in heaven”) cannot interfere with the rapture event (explained in Matt. 24:43) like he did with Moses’ burial (Jude 1:9).
Only recorded by Luke, in 17:22-37, Jesus taught His disciples before giving His Olivet Discourse that the coming of the Son of Man will take place on two distinct days.
Day one will be like the days of Noah. Day two will be like the days of Lot. Day one refers to the rapture of the church. Day two refers to the Jews fleeing Babylon. Arnold covers very thoroughly the biblical basis from Jeremiah for this flight in The Footsteps of the Messiah, 5th printing, Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1983, pp. 225-226.
As an aside to our discussion, Jesus told His disciples that they would long for, but not see, the rapture (Luke 17:22). Which means their scripture writings might reflect a strong “longing,” but not an “any-moment” mentality for the rapture, and therefore cannot be used to develop a biblical doctrine of imminency.
So the four of Jesus’ disciples that listened to the Olivet Discourse probably knew, or would discover, Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah on the Mount of Olives pertained to the rapture.
B. The Revelation
All the above information relates to Jews in the land. Now, on to the Revelation for information aimed at believing Jews outside the land.
The seven messages in Rev. 2 and 3 are each comprised of three parts: one, a salutation relating Jesus’ ministry to each specific messenger; two, the body of the message relating to messenger/congregational issues; and three, a closing by the Spirit to discerners/overcomers of all the congregations combined in aggregate.
Keep in mind, the salutations place the seven messages chronologically into the things that are (i.e., Dan. 9:26) and the things which will take place after these things (i.e., Dan. 9:27). The first three messages are to the desolation/diasporal generation; the last four messages are to the rapture/tribulation generation.
It may be helpful to picture Jesus coming seriatim to each of the seven congregations that are representative of congregations of Jewish believers outside the land during their respective generations of Dan. 9:26 and Dan. 9:27. This is not to suggest that the seven congregations in those seven cities in what is now Turkey were not historical. They most certainly were. But, they were cautioned by both the chronologically outlined sequence, and by the discerner/overcomer closings, that some of the messages pertained to a future generation (via the Law of Double Reference, Arnold, op. cit. p. 4).
Jesus came to the Dan. 9:26 congregations (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum) in His role as high priest. Their respective messengers played a role not unlike John the Immerser did to those in the land. For the Dan. 9:27 “rapture” congregations (Thyatira, Sardis), Jesus will come as high priest and bridegroom. For the Dan. 9:27 “tribulation” congregations, Jesus will come as Messiah, the King.
Following this outline, the message to the believing messenger of the Messianic congregation of the rapture/tribulation generation at Sardis reveals the following four things:
- One, he is active religiously, but dead spiritually (cf. Rom. 8:13 suggests the messenger is likely living according to the flesh).
- Two, the messenger is to “wake up,” a likely command for a spiritually sleeping saint.
- Three, the messenger is to remember how he received the Spirit by the hearing of faith (cf. Gal. 3:2), resolve to keep this approach to spiritual living, and repent by changing his mind about how his deeds should be accomplished (i.e., by faith in the indwelling Christ Who by the Spirit will manifest His life through said messenger). And,
- Four, if the messenger does not wake up, Jesus warns that He will come unexpectedly for the messenger via the rapture (translator’s note: the construction in Rev. 3:3 is translated by the NASB as “come to you,” but is unique among the letters, and should rather be translated, “come for you.” See Wallace’s grammar, p. 376.A.3.b and BDAG, p. 366.11 or 366.14.b.a).
The messenger to Sardis is told, by implication, that he can, and should know, the hour of the rapture. However, the word “hour” is likely not a 60-minute interval (it would thereby contradict Matt. 24:36 that says no one knows the hour of the rapture) but figurative for a time span because in the next letter to Philadelphia, “hour” is used to denote Daniel’s 70th week, either in part or in whole (Rev. 3:10).
Conclusion
To conclude, despite much popular teaching, the Jewish generation that will be a part of the rapture can and should be identified from the information Jesus gave His followers. In fact, Jesus encouraged His messenger to wake up so he would know the specific generational years—perhaps even the year and the month—that He would return for His bride.
The Theory of Everything
The Holy Grail of theoretical physics—the king of the sciences—is sometimes referred to as “The Theory of Everything,” or TOE.
The quest is to integrate Einstein’s theory of relativity with quantum mechanics to provide a single theory that harmonizes the behavior of physical matter from the tiniest particles to the largest entities in the universe.
Garrett Lisi recently suggested the E8 Lie Group might be used to integrate relativity with quantum mechanics. A current analysis in Scientific American seems to disprove Lisi’s hypothesis.
Another attempt has been the formulation of String Theory. Confirmation of this theory awaits some experimental work with the Large Hadron Collider this coming spring.
The following treatise is offered as a theory of everything to those practicing the queen of the sciences—theology.
Like relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, the two opposing viewpoints in theology are: the Arminians who suggest one’s salvation can be lost. The opposing group is the Experimental Predestinarians that suggests if one is truly saved, salvation cannot be lost. A third group—the so called “Free Grace” people—holds that salvation cannot be lost, but eternal rewards can be lost. The source of data for all these groups formulating their respective theories is not a physics laboratory. Rather, the authoritative source for their theories is the Word of God.
The theological theory of everything, TTOE, seeks to harmonize all the data regarding salvation from the Bible.
Resolution of the seeming contradictions among the various groups is not difficult. Harmony comes from understanding what comprises the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Like the dual gospel of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, the gospel of Jesus is comprised of two distinct promises from God. The first is forgiveness of sins leading to life. The second is freedom from enslavement to indwelling sin leading to God-pleasing behavior of God’s child.
The first promise is unalterable, irrevocable, and permanent irrespective of His child’s behavior before, or after, the promise becomes a reality in life through belief. In other words, salvation from the lake-of-fire judgment cannot be lost.
The second promise likewise becomes functional through belief. However, the real possibility exists that God’s child can decide not to pursue God’s second promise by faith. In that case, salvation from enslavement to sin can be lost during one’s life on earth with the concomitant reality that God’s child cannot please His Father.
Focusing solely on one promise or the other likely results in God’s child becoming a member of a group espousing one of the competing theological theories.
One other factor requires clarification: the life of faith required to maintain salvation from enslavement to indwelling sin. Indwelling sin, by heredity, infects everyone’s body. Indwelling sin is the source of disobedience to God’s commandments. Here is a perplexing paradox. God’s commandments are precisely the trigger used by indwelling sin to compel disobedience.
God has solved this human dilemma for His child by having His Son, Jesus, make His abode within God’s child. Jesus is perfectly obedient to His Father’s will in everything under all conditions at all times. So to please God, His child chooses not to obey God’s commandments (robbing sin of its trigger), but instead believes Jesus will manifest a life pleasing to God through the sin-infested members of the child’s mortal body.
So the passages in the scriptures that guarantee eternal life are correct. And the passages that warn of enslavement to sin (thereby loosing one’s ‘salvation’) and a life unpleasing to God are also correct. Rewards related to works for the child of God are indeed handed out at the judgment seat of Christ. Those works done by faith in Christ as Lord over indwelling sin are rewarded. Those works done by the control of indwelling sin are not rewarded.
Some interesting corollaries follow: ‘unsaved’ people (i.e., saints enslaved to sin) will be in heaven; saved people can loose their ‘salvation’ (i.e., saints who have triggered sin in their lives by choosing to obey, themselves, God’s commandments). Saints who live by faith in the indwelling Christ will receive rewards. Saints, who by their own rigorous and determined obedience to God’s commandments, will not receive rewards.
I just realized that one can go to heaven, and yet, not be saved!
Here’s how:
Salvation is twofold.
One, an unsaved person needs forgiveness of sins to have eternal life. Once the unsaved one believes God’s promise of forgiveness of sins, he has eternal life and will not come into judgment. The reality is that he will go to heaven, and that is permanent and irreversible no matter what happens in life.
Two, a saved person needs freedom from sin to live his life in a manner pleasing to God. So the saved person needs to be saved from enslavement to sin. In reality, some become enslaved to sin. In this sense they are not saved from sin. Yet, they go to heaven.
I think much of the theological divide in Christendom may be derived from misunderstanding the twofold nature of salvation with the result that both parts are lumped into one.
The Translators’ Tragedy
The last two verses of the English Old Testament contain one of the greater translation tragedies in all Christendom. First, we are told that God is going to send Elijah before the Tribulation. Then we are told of Elijah’s ministry. He is going to change the hearts of fathers to children. But, our English translators don’t say this. What they say is that Elijah is going to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children” (NASB).
What is patently obvious is that the English translators are uncertain as to the meaning behind what Malachi wrote. However, it is clear from reviewing the historical ministry of Elijah that he did miracles. Physical miracles, like giving life to the dead.
An additional and extremely important fact is that these spiritual miracles promise d by God through the New Covenant are as identifiable as physical miracles. The mark of identification is the recognized change in one’s behavior that results in unconditional love for those in the faith.
Anatomy of a Miracle
In Chapter Three of Romans, the apostle Paul asserted that all human righteousness was unacceptable to God because indwelling sin controlled everyone thereby defiling all human works. However, Paul went on to reassure his readers that God has done something about this human dilemma. God made His righteousness miraculously available through Christ by faith, thus defining the righteousness that befits “the righteous one who will live by faith” in Chapter One. (The Baptist’s ministry was replete with this type of miracle.)