THE RAPTURE

In accordance with 1 Thessalonians 4: 16 - 17 those who had fallen asleep in Christ together with those who were alive were taken to heaven:

·         For the Lord himself will descend from heaven . . .

·         . . . and the dead in Christ will rise first then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

This event had been eagerly awaited - Romans 8: 23 - 24:

·         . . . we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope . . .

It is known as the Rapture and it happened for those who looked for the blessed hope and denied ungodliness and worldly lusts and lived soberly, righteously and godly in the present age in accordance with Titus 2: 13.

NOTE:

The word 'rapture', in its 'modern' English meaning and understanding, does not occur in the Bible. It is an imaginative translation of the 'blessed hope' of Titus 2: 13 and is closely linked to words like 'beatitude, bliss, delectation, delight ecstasy, euphoria' etc. The original meanings of the Greek (harpazo) or Latin (rapere) was 'seize', 'transport', 'carry off', 'snatch up'.

The Rapture happened as explained in 1 Corinthians 15: 52, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye . . . The return of Jesus was like a thief in the night and only those who watched and prayed - for you do not know when the time is - were saved. The Son of Man came at an hour when they didn't expect him. (Matthew 24: 44, Mark 13:37)

There was a reason for Jesus coming twice and it is explained in the parable in Luke 19: 11 - 27. Those who did do their best, did so because they were being faithful and believed him when he said he is coming back as king. Jesus leaving and coming back is a test to see who really believed what he said, and remained faithful.

Jesus did not stay away for long as can be seen from the promises:

·         The Lord is at hand - Philippians 4: 5

·         He who is coming will come and will not tarry - Hebrews 10: 37

·         Behold, the Judge is standing at the door - James 5: 9

·         Behold, I am coming quickly - Revelation 22: 7

The Corinthian Christian community was eagerly waiting (1 Corinthians 1: 7) as were the Thessalonians as they knew the Rapture would happen in their lifetimes:

·         . . . we who are alive . . . (1 Thessalonians 4: 17)

·         . . . we shall all be changed . . . (1 Corinthians 15: 51)

Jesus confirms this with:

·         . . . this generation will by no means pass away till all things are fulfilled . . . (Luke 21: 32 and Matthew 24: 34)

The Rapture happened before the Tribulation which started in 67/68 CE, during Vespasian's campaign through the Galilee during the Third Roman-Hebrew War. The followers of Jesus fled before the Roman army before being 'raptured':

But when they persecute you in this city, flee to another.  For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10: 23)

Josephus confirms the Jews fled from town to town before the advancing Roman armies until those left behind were trapped in places like Taricheae and Gamla. 

NOTE

In the New Testament, most of the seventy-three mentions of the word 'Israel' describe an ethnic or religious group of people.  The author of Matthew (unlike Luke) clearly understood Israel under early Roman rule to be a separate political entity which consisted in main of the province of Galilee.  At times it also included parts of other territories like the Golan.  Local Hebrews always regarded it as an independent country which they called Israel after the early northern kingdom and it was known as the Kingdom of Israel under Agrippa II, the last Jewish king.  Besides the mention of Israel by Jesus as a geographical entity in Matthew 10: 23 it is also done in places like Matthew 2: 21.  (Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.) 

The Tribulation started when Titus launched his assault on Jerusalem in 70/71 CE - from the time Jerusalem was surrounded by armies (Luke 21: 20) it was the days of vengeance (Luke 21: 22). 

For those not taken up to the clouds in the Rapture it was truly a 'tribulation' - the horror of Luke 21: 23 -24:

·         But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!  For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

·         And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.  And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is confirmed by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews:

·         . . . so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died . . .

·         . . . nailed those they caught to the crosses, by way of jest . . .

·         . . . Titus commanded that the hands of many of those that were caught should be cut off . . .

·         . . . the Syrians cut up those that came as supplicants, and searched their bellies . . .

and tellingly

She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition?  As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves!  This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us; yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other.  Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets and a byword to the world , which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews."  As soon as she had said this, she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed.

There is no mention of the Apostles after 67 CE and no writings by them either - Paul vanishes around 63 CE - so it has to be assumed they were all taken in the Rapture. (The alternative involves the acceptance of dubious sources or extremely complex reasoning.) Simple logic dictates for the witnesses to the Resurrection (the Apostles), who remained faithful and believed the 'King' would return, to be spared the horror. They were among the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from earth (Revelation 14: 3), because they were the first-fruits to God and to the Lamb (Revelation 14: 4). They were as holy as the sacrifices at Pentecost and Jesus would not have left them to the mercies of the Romans. 

All 12 the Tribes of Jacob mourned as the 'end of times' signs appeared - the sign of the cross was everywhere as thousands were crucified - and they died horrible deaths before the Temple was destroyed. (Matthew 24: 29 - 30). Those who did not know God was left on earth and were punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. (2 Thessalonians 1: 8 - 9)

A TOWN CALLED BETHLEHEM

About ten kilometers east of Nazareth in the Galilee is the settlement of Beit Lekhem ha-Glilit ('the Galilean Bethlehem'). The settlement was started by members of the German Templar (not the same as the ancient Templars) movement in 1906. They chose to site their settlement close to ancient 'Bethlehem of Zebulun' mentioned in Joshua 19: 15. (Included were Kattath, Nahallal, Shimron, Idalah and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages.) The Templars left before WWII to join the Nazis or moved to Australia.

Most Christians accept the birthplace of Jesus to be Bethlehem in Judea and this might be true, but it raises too many questions which cannot easily be answered. It makes a lot more sense if the birth took place in Bethlehem in the Galilee. As in all things, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

It would also clarify a discrepancy between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.

In Luke 2: 1 - 4, it says:

• a decree went out
• census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria
• all went to be registered, everyone to his own city
• Joseph also went up from Galilee
• to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem

Matthew 2: 1 says

• Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king
• wise men from the East came to Jerusalem

Quirinius only became legate in 6 CE, while Herod the Great died ten years earlier in 4 BCE. To overcome this discrepancy there is an interpretation which says Matthew meant Herod Antipas and not his father, Herod the Great. The problem with this is Herod Antipas was not a king and he never ruled from Jerusalem - it must have been Herod the Great Matthew is talking about. This means Luke was wrong.

Such a small discrepancy is of little importance except to show the authors of these two books did not have their facts straight. This can be understood as they wrote more than seventy years after the event. Luke introduced the census as a convoluted reason to justify a long and dangerous journey. Nobody in their right mind would load a pregnant woman on a donkey and travel for ten days through the snow. It simply did not happen.  

The simple and elegant solution is the birthplace of Jesus was Bethlehem in the Galilee. With the help of archeology and history, an alternative sequence of events can be constructed which makes a lot more sense.

Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth which at the time was a farm with a few houses for the workers. They travelled to the 'big' town of Bethlehem 10 kilometers away on the 24th of Kislev for the celebration of Hanukkah - and to await the birth. Being in Bethlehem had the advantages of being close to midwives and the local rabbi for the circumcision on the 8th day after the birth. The Galilee never gets freezing cold in winter so there were shepherds in the field. When it turned out the inn was full due to the influx of festival goers, Joseph and Mary could comfortably move into a cave area at the back which would normally have been a manger. 

The trip brought on the birth, and Jesus was born on the evening of the 24th - the 25th in the Jewish calendar and the first day of Hanukkah. (Traditionally the evening of the 24th is as important as the 25th.) Herod, on hearing of the birth of a rival, sent Roman soldiers to the area and they destroyed everything including Bethlehem. Everybody from the town and the surrounding areas fled to the area around Ptolemais (modern Akko) at the time Egyptian under the Ptolemies.

Herod the Great captured Sepphoris or Zippori/Tzipori as part of his conquest of the Galilee in 37 BCE, and the town which used to be an important centre, stagnated. With Herod's death, the town rose in revolt against Roman rule. The Romans quickly captured it and razed it to a ruin. The inhabitants were enslaved. Shortly afterward, Herod Antipas started a rebuilding program of Sepphoris - he called it Autocratoris. With work available, craftsmen, including carpenters returned from far and wide to the Galilee. Religious Jews refused to live in Autocratoris as it was Roman but instead of rebuilding Bethlehem, they moved to Nazareth, as it was closer.

Nazareth became a 'city' overnight while Bethlehem was quickly forgotten. By the time of the writing of the gospels of Luke and Matthew (60 - 70 CE) even Sepphoris had become a backwater and the authors of the gospels would not have heard of Bethlehem of the Galilee at all. It would have been an easy mistake to assume it was Bethlehem in Judea. 

IBIS IN CRUCEM

Crucifixion in the time of Jesus was not an official Jewish method of execution. Even though used by the Jews during war, it was a Roman practice while they were the rulers. According to Cicero, it was used specifically as the extreme penalty for rebellion against Rome even though at times it was used for other crimes as well. Because of poor translations, the rebels were called 'bandits' (their crime was not theft or robbery) and no distinction was made between violent and non-violent revolutionaries. Jesus was convicted correctly within Roman law for the crime of insurrection.

After the conquest of Pompey, only Rome was allowed to appoint kings or rulers in Israel/Judea. The uncertain period of rule by the ethnarch Archelaus (4 BCE - 6 CE) was followed by direct Roman control of Judea through governors (legates and procurators) - at the time of Jesus it was Pontius Pilate. Jesus was heralded as the new king as in Matthew 21: 5 (Behold, your king is coming to you) and 21: 9 (Hosanna to the son of David) etc. There can be no doubt about Jesus being perceived and accepted by a large part of the population of Jerusalem as an earthly king - this being a misunderstanding or not is irrelevant.

The Jewish religious rulers accused Jesus of numerous things among themselves but in front of Pilate, they stuck to the three charges constituting revolution. The most serious being, Jesus' claim, that he himself is the king and Jesus admitted to this - the governor asked him, saying, "Are you the king of the Jews?" So Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." (Matthew 27: 11). He did not however admit to the charges of perverting the nation or tax evasion. Pontius Pilate had to believe an earthly king is meant and this must have been Jesus' intention as he could easily have explained about the heavenly kingdom.

Note: The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if he was the messiah - a title which in Judaism meant an earthly ruler.

In summary; Jesus admitted to being the king of the Jews and was crucified for the crime of revolution - no other. The conviction was based on confession. The Jewish religious leaders got what they wanted without having to act against Jesus themselves as they could have done. Considering all the factors, it is no wonder the conviction of Jesus remains a controversial subject. The crucifixion is equally controversial.

Various cultures had for centuries carried out crucifixions, each in its own manner but the Romans devised a particularly cruel form of crucifixion. The condemned was made to walk through the streets carrying the beam of the cross with a sign (the titulus) explaining the offense around the neck. The cross was laid on the ground and the condemned on top with the crossbeam pushed under the neck. The arms were tied to the crossbeam in a manner so the weight of the body would be carried by the strongest parts of the arms. To prevent the person from pulling their arms out of the bonds, their hands or wrists were nailed to the beam. The feet were nailed through the heel bone to the cross (a piece of wood prevented the feet from slipping off the nail) with the knees sharply bent and the legs twisted and folded to one side to make the cross as short, and therefore as manageable as possible. (The long crosses depicted in art would have fallen over.) The cross was then hauled upright with ropes.

If a person were hung from a cross by the arms only, death would result in five hours from suffocation. As the victim will be unconscious for most of the time, it provided poor sport for the Romans so they innovated. They provided the cross with a footrest where the victim could 'stand' and a little seat to sit on when his legs got tired. They also made sure their victims were not dehydrating by offering drinks from a sponge. The victim had the choice; hang by the arms and feel slow suffocation, or stand or sit and breathe a bit longer. As the instinct to breathe is the most basic of all, the condemned will constantly try to ease the pressure on the lungs by sitting or standing and then trying to ease into a slightly more comfortable position only to find it becomes unbearable in minutes. It was this writhing in pain which made this method of punishment so particularly cruel and so appealing to the Romans. By ensuring rehydration, the crucified could be kept alive for days.

Note: In a modern crucifixion in Saudi Arabia, a 14 year old survived for three days. The belief was and is, if somebody survived three days on the cross, he is proved to be without guilt/sin. The arms of victims swell up tremendously so surviving would almost certainly mean losing limbs.

When the Romans had, had enough 'sport', they broke the bones in the legs so the crucified could no longer lift up to open the lungs - the Jews asked Pilate to have their legs broken. Unconsciousness and death would then follow quickly.  In the case of Jesus, he was already dead so his legs were not broken, and did not die from asphyxiation. 

Jesus bled from the scouring he endured, and because of the metal-ball weights at the end of the thongs, he also had internal bleeding. His pulse rate went up and his blood pressure down - this combined with his kidneys shutting down caused the collapse while he carried the 'cross' to Golgotha. On the cross, his condition worsened and fluid gathered in the 'spaces' around the heart and lungs. His heart was racing and going into failure.

The collection of fluids around the lungs made breathing impossible at an earlier stage of the crucifixion than would otherwise have been the case. When, according to John 19: 34 one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear there was an immediate gush of blood and water. If Jesus had not been dead, this would have helped save his life, as it would have eased his breathing.  

Jesus became very thirsty and asked for a drink. Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to his mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished!" And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit (John 19: 29 - 30). If Jesus had not died this would have been excellent first aid. The vinegar in water was the perfect way to rehydrate, reactivate the kidneys and restore potassium levels to normalize the heartbeat. Obviously the Romans knew this and used vinegar to prolong the life of the victim.

If Jesus had not been dead, he would have survived and it would still have been said: in him there was no sin (1 John 3: 5) and the incredible series of life saving events would have been a miracle. If he had not died, it would still have been said he has been raised from the dead  (1 Corinthians 15: 12) and he would have been no less a messiah.