A case for our sudden disappearance...

[Ready1]

I agree with both of you. When Jesus first revealed himself to Mary she did not know him.

Joh 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Joh 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

[Ready1]

No indication that an unbeliever saw him after his resurrection. Here is the order

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

[bchandler]

(biblical source) There were also others who were raised with Jesus who went into the city and testified of him. Jesus did not come out of the grave alone. He brought a public testimony with himself, back from the grave.

(extra biblical source) The author of The Arco Volumes also claimed to have found Roman and Talmud records evidence, in Vatican archives, of Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to Pilot, and Caiaphas, as well as both of their resignations some time after they report their encounter with the risen Lord. Wouldn't it be interesting if these 2 men actually became Christians?

I just don't see any way that Jesus' return can be a secret. Regardless of your eschatological view, i think all of the biblical evidence shows that this event is clearly public, and it comes as a thief upon those not watching. I believe that all of those left behind will know beyond any shadow of a doubt why. I believe that at this point, those left behind will not be deceived, but will be making a fully informed and conscious choice between YHWH and lucifer the light bearer. In fact, God's word tells us that part of the reason lucifer fell, was because he was narcissistic about his own beauty and brightness (both physical and mental enlightenment). His glory was so great that he dared to consider himself to be more enlightened than YHWH (of course he is insane). But understanding this, is it any wonder the new-agers consider lucifer to be more enlightened/illuminated? A higher level ascended master than YHWH or his son?

I do not believe that there is any real biblical support for a secret rapture when biblical reference is kept in context. I believe that it is only by removal from or misunderstanding of contextual relationship in the texts that we can conceive of a secret rapture.

I have heard it said that the harvest found in revelation 14:14 is not a picture of the rapture. (was a first for me and i have been taught pre-trib all my life) The argument against it has something to do with the word used for ripe... and it's meaning which is referring to the earth's harvest being fully dried out (dessicated). But this confusion should not exist, as Jesus himself speaks about the fields being white unto harvest. This white look of the fields only occurs when the grains are fully dried out. Grains like wheat, or barley are not harvested while they are green. They must be fully dried out in the field before harvest. In the old days grain millers used to have a condition called "Miller's Thumb". You could identify a miller because his thumbs were much wider than normal. This was caused by the miller rolling grain between his thumb and forefinger to check the dryness/hardness of the grain. Why is this so critical? If the grain is placed in a silo before it is fully dried out, it will mold/mildew and be lost. If it is ground before it is fully dried out, it will ruin the Miller's grinding stones, and itself and be lost.

So, IMO, the argument that denies that Jesus harvesting the earth in Revelation 14:14 is a picture of the rapture is fallacious. We are clearly shown 2 separate harvests. One in which Jesus himself harvests the earth... in exactly the manner described in scripture... He comes in the clouds of heaven and calls forth his own with his sign, shouts, and trumpets. The other is where the angels (not Jesus) harvest the grapes of wrath...

Regardless of your eschatology, and whether you think this description in revelation 14 is a summary restatement of a previous event or a contextually bound record of the actual event, I think it should be reasonably clear that this harvest is a description of the rapture. Once the need for proper, full, and complete drying of mature grain before harvest is well understood, it is no longer possible, IMO, to argue that this desiccation/ripeness is the death and decay taught by those who deny that this depicts the rapture.

G3583
ξηραίνω

xērainō

xay-rah'ee-no

From G3584; to desiccate; by implication to shrivel, to mature: - dry up, pine away, be ripe, wither (away).

[Resurrection Torchlight]

Nice to hear from you again bchandler. Though I disagree with you, I am glad you didn't stay away.

I said this before, but perhaps you missed it- the harvest or reaping is not a resurrection or rapture event, but rather a cutting off from life. In fact the term "cut off" is used often in the old testament to mean "eliminated" or "killed". The term "reap" in Revelation means to "cut off" or "destroy" the grain is cut down.

When the grain becomes ripe or dessicated as you pointed out- it is in essence about to die, when the grain is harvested it is cut down, cut off from the earth, no longer connected to the source of life- it is killed. So the picture in Revelation that you refer to is just that- the life being cut off- a reaping of people. It is the ingathering that reflects a resurrection or rapture event, bringing the grain into the Lord's barn. The gathering of the grapes in the Revelation passage is not into the Lord's barn, but are thrown into the wine press of God's wrath.

Matthew 13:30
30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

Matthew 3:12
12 “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

As I explain in my resurrection harvest post- in the passage that speaks of the order of the resurrection you have three groups spoken of, which I believe correlate to the three harvest festivals. This IMO is a compelling passage which seems to indicate that there is indeed a resurrection(rapture) that occurs before Christ Comes.

1 Corinthians 15:20-25
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

The Christ first fruits= Barley first fruits harvest (Unleavened Bread)
those who are Christ's at His coming= Wheat first fruits (Pentecost)
then comes the end= end of the wheat harvest (Tabernacles)

The passage clearly indicates an order to the resurrection with the Christ first fruits being the first to be resurrected (raptured) these would be those who are in Christ- who make up His body before He comes (Barley). AFTER that those who are Christ's at His coming- these would be those that come to faith during the tribulation- those martyrs and the 144,000 who are called first fruits (wheat) Then comes the end when Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father, when death, the last enemy is abolished. These would be those who live during the millennium(the general wheat harvest). It is here that the tares are gathered first and burned, while the grain that will have been harvested throughout the millennium will be gathered into the Lord's barn.

Anyway that's my take what do you think?

RT

[bchandler]

I don't think i disagree with you... but consider this.... Christ and the first fruits, if there are others beside Christ in this group... Wouldn't this group have been those raised at the same time as Jesus? Jesus was not the only person raised Easter morning. There were others that scripture tells us went into Jerusalem, who were raised to testify of him.

So I am not sure that the Barley harvest is not already complete. What makes you think that it is not?

Also... given the description of the wheat harvest in rev 14:14.... Jesus coming on the clouds just as his disciples were told he would come... to harvest the wheat... and given that Jesus never talked about a separate barley harvest, only wheat... It just seems to me that He, and those raised with him, were in fact the Barley harvest.

[mark s]

There is another reason why I do not think that Revelation 14 contains the rapture of the church, and that is because it follows the plagues initiated by the trumpets. I do not believe the Revelation is written out of order. I think it is very orderly.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Resurrection Torchlight]

So I am not sure that the Barley harvest is not already complete. What makes you think that it is not?

Well because the passage says that Christ was the first fruits of the dead, and we know that he was raised on the day when the barley omer was brought into the temple, the first fruits of the barley harvest. And the Christ first fruits are raised first in the order. If Christ is the head and we are His body then it makes sense that we would be a part of that first group. I am sure that you would not disagree that scripture tells us in various passages that we are His body, therefore we would be raised in His likeness as Christ first fruits. Likewise those who were raised from the dead at Christ's death, if indeed to immortality would also have been Christ first fruits, though it is unclear if these were raised to eternal life or like Lazarus may have been raised back to life on earth.

It appears to me at least from what I have studied, and I could be wrong, that this order of the resurrection speaks to dispensations, the age of grace, the church age of those in Christ followed by the Kingdom age or Millennium. The wheat first fruits are part of the kingdom or millennial age, those who are Christ's. I find it interesting that in Paul's explanation of the order of the resurrection that a distinction is drawn- the Christ first fruits are equated with Christ,and are described as being Christ, while those who follow after them are said to be Christ's, they belong to Him, they are His at His coming, a very curious distinction don't you think? Indeed when Paul was converted the Lord asks "why are you persecuting Me?" He didn't ask "why are you persecuting My followers?". The Lord Jesus Christ equated them with being a part of Himself. While those who are resurrected when He comes are not, they are described in the Greek as " being in His presence".

I think this is also what is going on in Revelation 12 which talks about the woman who gives birth to the male child, and the child was caught up to heaven- that child is Christ, but Christ's catching up to heaven and to His throne represents only the birth of the child's head, at some point in time this prophecy will be completed when the Child's body is delivered to the heavenly throne room. The time between the resurrection of Christ- the head, and the resurrection/rapture of Christ- the body are what I believe is the time we call the "birth pains" with an escalation of "contractions" as the final push sees the body of the Male Child delivered safely to the heavenly kingdom. As you read further in Revelation 12 you encounter the rest of the woman's children, who are pursued by the dragon. These children are not the male child, but other offspring of the same mother("the rest of her children"). The mother who would be the Jerusalem above-

Galatians 4:22-31
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”
28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30 But what does the Scripture say?
“Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

Where the church of the firstborn are enrolled

Hebrews 12:22-24
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Again just because Jesus didn't talk about a separate Barley harvest doesn't mean their won't be one, in fact He doesn't really mention a wheat harvest specifically either, except in the parable of the wheat and tares and the passage that talks about the wheat and the chaff- both indicate the final judgment is in view because they both talk about the wicked ones being burned in the fire.

Sorry- didn't mean to get carried away- I just find it all so very intriguing, anyway that's why I think what I think.

RT